VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

What would you suggest the next reply should be?

I am thinking something along the lines of:

"Thank you for your reply, however you have failed to address the questions in my email and have mistaken me for the driver. As this event occured pre-POFA you cannot simply make the owner liable. So on these grounds I (the owner) do not owe VCS any money"

All suggestions welcome and thanks in advance.

Thanks.

D

[mystery1]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Dear BW Legal,

Thank you for your letter of xxx the contents of which are noted.

I would point out that i did not contend that i had purchased a ticket and i am unsure if you have you cases mixed up or not. Further i pointed out that i was not the driver which you seem to have missed or ignored.

You have also failed to exchange any information or answer any question i put to you.

There is no reason for you to claim money from myself in these circumstances as, again, i was not the driver.

Yours sincerely.

M1

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Thanks.

I have sent this reply off. Waiting to hear back from them.

D

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Hi

Despite our last email to them stating I was not the driver (as told above), they have just completely ignored it and sent the attached letter?
At this point should I just write a reply asking for acknowledgement of my email reply? Or tell them about their unprofessional manner and reiterate the point that i wasn't the driver, and hence no penalty is payable by me?

Or have I missed something?

Kind regards,

D

[mystery1]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Dear Dickhead,

Thank you for your offer letter of xx/xx/xx the contents of which are noted.

I was not the driver and this predates PoFA 2012 so i will not be paying as i have no liability in this matter.

Yours Sincerely

M1

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Thanks M1.

I have sent this off now.

D

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Update. They have used the Elliott v Loake card now.
Other thing is they have given 7 days to reply, but wrote the letter on 20/9/2016 and I only got the reply on 23/09/2016.

Anyway, am I right to use the PoFA card now?

Kind regards

D

[mystery1]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

They have acknowledge that they will not rely on PoFA.


Dear numbnuts,

Thank you for your letter of xxx the contents of which are noted.

Your assertion that a keeper can be held liable without PoFA 2012 being in play is, in my opinion, just wrong.

Elliot V Loake does not set the precedent you seem to think. There was other evidence aside from ownership which allowed the court to find as they did. This included the owners statements that they had the keys, did not let anyone use the car, forensic evidence which placed the car at the scene and a statement that the vehicle had not been stolen as well as lies from the owner. This is far removed from stating that the registered keeper is assumed to be the driver because your client has no idea who was driving.

Henry Michael Greenslade QC, the former lead adjudicator for Popla said, whilst still in his position,

"Understanding keeper liability“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Obviously there is a degree of common sense to be applied also, why would the government bring in legislation to provide for keeper liability if one could just assume it was ? It is clear that parliament believe that Elliot v Loake was not suitable and that they felt the need to hold registered keepers liable but only with strict conditions attached.






I, the registered keeper, was not the driver.


Yours sincerely

M1

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Thank you for the prompt reply M1.

I have sent the reply now.

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

No reply from BW Legal since 25th Sept. Should I be expecting a letter from court next???

D

[mystery1]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Possibly. It's hard to tell. Hopefully it's filed in the "too difficult" pile.

M1

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Well they finally sent a reply and have the audacity to demand a reply within 4 days and make mistakes with dates of previous correspondence.

Anyway, to recap, the last reply we had sent them was as below (May I also add, this reply was sent on 26/09/2016 by me ). And there reply is attached as a file. They have simply said that their "their client doesn't rely on PoFA 2012"


Dear BW Legal,
Thank you for your letter of 20/09/2016 the contents of which are noted.

Your assertion that a keeper can be held liable without PoFA 2012 being in play is, in my opinion, just wrong.

Elliot V Loake does not set the precedent you seem to think. There was other evidence aside from ownership which allowed the court to find as they did. This included the owners statements that they had the keys, did not let anyone use the car, forensic evidence which placed the car at the scene and a statement that the vehicle had not been stolen as well as lies from the owner. This is far removed from stating that the registered keeper is assumed to be the driver because your client has no idea who was driving.

Henry Michael Greenslade QC, the former lead adjudicator for Popla said, whilst still in his position,

"Understanding keeper liability“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Obviously there is a degree of common sense to be applied also, why would the government bring in legislation to provide for keeper liability if one could just assume it was ? It is clear that parliament believe that Elliot v Loake was not suitable and that they felt the need to hold registered keepers liable but only with strict conditions attached.


I, the registered keeper, was not the driver.


Yours sincerely

[mystery1]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Well there isn't much you can say that you haven't already. Time to wait and see, i'd say. 2018 is too far away to play letter ping pong and get to statute barred.

M1

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Hi,

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't reply to them now?

Kind regards,

D

[defendent]

Re: VCS BW Legal Notice from (July 2012)

Ok,

So I have not replied to them, it has been longer than the 4 day deadline they had given me.
I am guessing the next stage is court? What do I need to do to be prepared for this?

D