Case Report: Smart Parking wrongly pursued a former Keeper - Claim discontinued.

Bazarius

Invocation of Keeper liability under POFA impossible , Driver unknown, the existence of a Bill of Sale ignored

This case concerned a former keeper who had already sold the vehicle to a car dealer. He held a bill of sale, and the dealer confirmed they would handle the DVLA logbook transfer. He reasonably assumed everything was complete - until a PCN arrived for an incident that occurred after the sale.

He informed the PPC and DCBLegal that the vehicle had been sold, but was told he was still the registered keeper and therefore liable. The claimant’s Particulars of Claim attempted to assert Defendant was the Driver and “POFA 2012” as an alternative , so the defence addressed both.

A review of the PCN showed the Notice to Keeper was deemed given outside the 14‑day Relevant Period, making POFA keeper liability legally impossible. Under POFA, in cases of a registered vehicle- the registered keeper is only presumed to be the keeper at the time of parking - but this presumption is rebuttable. The bill of sale proved he was not the keeper at the material time, so POFA collapses entirely, and driver liability collapses with it.

Despite this, DCBLegal continued to assert POFA and claimed the Defendant was the driver - a position they knew, or ought to have known, was false, given the existence of the bill of sale.

Because POFA could not apply, the claimant’s only lawful route would have been to pursue the actual driver. They had no evidence whatsoever of who that was. Instead of discontinuing, they continued targeting the wrong person, relying on the DVLA registered‑keeper presumption as a pressure tactic. Even though the bill of sale rebutted that presumption, they pressed ahead in the hope the Defendant would not understand POFA, would not challenge their assertions, and would simply pay.

A big thank you to SAZ Solicitors for their swift and effective intervention after the Defence was filed . Their involvement resulted in the Claimant discontinuing quickly, preventing further unnecessary stress and bringing this matter to a prompt and fair conclusion.

Important Note for Future Cases

Where there is evidence that the claimant or its debt collectors knew, or ought to have known, that a bill of sale existed (or may have existed), a counterclaim is likely to succeed. Pursuing a person they knew was not the keeper - while falsely asserting POFA and driver liability — crosses into:

• Misuse of personal data obtained from the DVLA
• Misleading commercial practice
• Harassment
• Unreasonable conduct

All of these are actionable, and courts have previously awarded damages for similar behaviour.

kryten3000

Please post the N279 so we can count it in the thread of discontinuations.

SAZ are having great success getting these cases thrown out at an early stage which saves all the hassle of waiting mediation and transfer to local courts. I've pretty much stopped helping with claims over on Facebook as SAZ do a better job!