Claim Form received - Defence needed

handful of PCNs from my local station car park run by Britannia Parking.

1. The facts are that this vehicle was insured under a policy permitting two drivers to use it, and other family members with fully comprehensive insurance were also permitted to use it. To the Defendant's knowledge, more than one family member has used this vehicle in this car park around the material times, not just the Defendant who, on the balance of probabilities, was more likely not the driver on all of the dates given.

2. Parking at this station is common for the family, so the Defendant is unable to pinpoint who the driver actually was on each, or indeed any, of the listed occasions. The Claimant has shown no evidence and is put to strict proof of the driver(s) and how they contend the registered keeper can possibly be held liable.

3. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver on these occasions or that any terms were breached, for that matter. The RingGo app is familiar to the Defendant and on occasions the system was inoperative, but whether or not this system failure led to any of the named PCNs is unclear, given the very sparse facts in the Particulars of Claim.

4. The Defendant avers that due to the Claimant's failure to identify the driver, they will be limited to pursuing the Defendant under the statutory provisions set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA'). However, the Claimant is in difficulty, given the fact that this is not 'relevant land' under the definition set out in the POFA, being a site under control of railway byelaws.

4.1. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate:

(i) that the site is 'relevant land', and
(ii) that there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
(iii) that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver(s) to the registered keeper for each PCN.

5. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of the POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed.

5.1. Those provisions do not apply to this matter and nor does the POFA.
The Claimant should have identified the drivers on each occasion and the specific breaches alleged, and sought damages if applicable, from the driver(s) only. Their failure to do so does not excuse the Claimant in now issuing a blanket claim to the registered keeper, who cannot be held liable for parking events on non-relevant land.