tinytears

[tinytears]

Yesterday, I received a "Letter Before Action" from CEL for a parking offence on 23rd May 2014. Yes 2014 !!!! I wasn't even in the country on that date. My car had been made available to a number of people in my absence and the possibility of identifying the driver is and was non-existent. I have never corresponded with these people and don't intend to do so. If I eventually get a summons to Court I am more than willing to attend to vigorously contest the "outstanding debt + court, legal fees and interest" Am I being foolish?

[ostell]

Re: tinytears

As the keeper of the vehicle you are liable for this charge under POFA 2012, schedule 4 whether you were driving or not. But only if they comply with the requirements of POFA. POFA is here. In the first instance look at paragraphs 8 or 9 depending if there was a windscreen ticket or not. Compare that with the charge notice you received, and hopefully still have, and if not then you have a defence.

You must respond denying any liability and if you do not have a copy of the PCN then ask that they provide it so that you can make a decision about the matter. Not responding is no longer an option. If ignored then they will have a CCJ claim against you by default

[Snoopy1948]

Re: tinytears

My only observation on this would be that, as the registered owner of the vehicle, you would be the first port of call by any authority where any offence has been caused by that vehicle. And even though you state that 'My car had been made available to a number of people in my absence and the possibility of identifying the driver is and was non-existent', you must have some responsibility to its use during that time i.e. know, who, where and when etc. I totally agree with Ostell that you must respond, denying personal responsibility and back this up by explaining the stated circumstances.

I may be wrong but by letting your registered car be made available to a number of people who you seem unable to identify is asking for trouble and could have put you in the frame for much more than just a parking fine.

[mystery1]

Re: tinytears

My only observation on this would be that, as the registered owner of the vehicle, you would be the first port of call by any authority where any offence has been caused by that vehicle. And even though you state that 'My car had been made available to a number of people in my absence and the possibility of identifying the driver is and was non-existent', you must have some responsibility to its use during that time i.e. know, who, where and when etc. I totally agree with Ostell that you must respond, denying personal responsibility and back this up by explaining the stated circumstances.

I may be wrong but by letting your registered car be made available to a number of people who you seem unable to identify is asking for trouble and could have put you in the frame for much more than just a parking fine.

Not true.Yes as registered keeper they may get post and have a requirement to give information.

2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—


(a)the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and


(b)any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

The information could be as little as, i wasn't in the country my spouse/child/parent was the keeper contact them @ xxxx.

However in PPC land there is no such statutory obligation. Having said that, if the line the ducks up correctly then as registered keeper you could still be liable under POFA.





As for the LBA, post it up (suitably sanitised).

M1