Liability

Gnomeman

Here's one for you.

Overstay at a retail park. Driver A drives in, driver B drives out.

Keeper receives a POFA-compliant NtK. Genuinely thinks they are not the driver - after all the Act states:

"driver” includes, where more than one person is engaged in the driving of the vehicle, any person so engaged.

So they transfer liability to the other person and instruct them to erase all details they hold about them.

The PPC cancels the charge. They issue a brand new PCN with a completely new reference number to the other person.

This is titled a "Parking Charge Notice" and is now nothing to with POFA (ie. it is not a "Notice to Driver" as it was not attached to the vehicle. It is a bog standard pre-2012 invoice).

In the event of a claim this person would deny being the driver, genuinely believing so and with grounds.

The usual small print of "if the person nominated denies being the driver we have the right to pursue the keeper" runs into some issues:

• this tends to assume the driver would inform them before proceedings, but why should they?
• the PPC has erased all keeper details and they have been informed the charge has been cancelled anyway
• the PPC would have to apply to the DVLA for keeper details afresh
• the PCN would arrive way way past the 14 days
• the Keeper could still just transfer liability ad infinitum - maybe the relationship between the two people is acrimonious.

Any thoughts on this situation?

MrJenkinsEsq

Pofa's definition of driver is inclusive to cover things like learner and supervisor, but the charge arises in contract, and the contracting party is whoever parked. B didn't park, so naming B isn't naming the person liable.

Car1980

Yes, it would be whoever entered and parked.

But, practically, I'm not sure how they could pursue the keeper again if they have deleted the data? Would a sneaky SARS work in a few months time? What would happen if they supplied all the data they said had been deleted?

Anyway, even if they lost a claim against the driver would they even be arsed to chase the keeper considering this is just a numbers game?

Plus we all know there are fake addresses that people transfer liability to. You see people on the news having received 100 random PCNs from the postman 😄

MrJenkinsEsq

The boring answer is they'll refuse erasure under article 17(3)(e) (necessary for legal claims) and keep the keeper's details. If they claimed to have deleted it and a SAR showed otherwise, that's an ICO complaint, not a defence.

Le_Kirk

SARS is severe acute respiratory syndrome, which you do not want to go anywhere near.

You mean a SAR - Subject Access Request