Debt Agency Now Threating Court And Quoting Case Law – Please Help!

[johidd]

A Brief History:-

A car, of which I am the registered keeper, received a parking ticket from APCOA Parking Services (UK) Ltd. I believe this to be a private company. I was not the driver at the time of the incident. As advised on the forum I put the ticket in a drawer.

The first communication that I received was a letter from a debt collecting agency for the ‘Unpaid Civil Penalty Notice’. Although advised to stuff the letter in a drawer, I couldn’t resist to have some fun and give them the standard reply that I am not responsible for the driver’s actions and that I am not liable to inform them of the driver’s name. (I’m afraid I’m unemployed and unfortunately have plenty of time to spend wasting their time!!)

The debt agency have now written back now calling this ‘An Unpaid Parking Contravention Charge Notice’ (any Comments welcome?) and are threatening me with court action quoting law of precedent on two counts.

Quote:-

1. Watteau v Fenwick (1893) This establishes the existence of a principal/agency relationship. Where the Principal (in this case here the registered keeper) is responsible for the actions of its agent (in this case the driver). In the event of non-disclosure the Principal will be liable for the charges.

2. Combined Parking Solutions v S J Thomas (2008) The defendant denied or never accepted he was the driver but the court found that on balance of probabilities he was and found in favour of the plaintiff.

As regards count No.2, I have no problems as I can prove that I was 250 miles away, celebrating the birth of a grand niece.

However they must be pretty desperate to drudge up case law from 109 years ago. (google it and check out how relevant it is!)

What I would like to do is write back to them quoting a legal precedent where the registered keeper has not been found responsible. Any Suggestions?

And many thanks to all the people who have helped me this far.

[crem]

FIrst off, I think the general advise is STOP WRITING TO THEM!

Whilst you might think it is "fun", there are 2 problems;

 

1) you only prompt them to send you more and more stuff

and

2) there is a danger you may say something that would stand up in court and they decide to prosecute you.

[JonCris]

I agree you should have done as 1st advised & ignored them

 

However there is a recent case on here where perky has been defeated TWICE under very similar circumstances so I suggest you find it & learn

 

Then wait & see what happens Writing only encourages them

[Rob S]

The case of Combined Parking Solutions v S Thomas was in a county court, so no legal precedent was set. They are scaremongering, so just ignore them, as others have already advised you.

[RichardM]

On both cases, they are talking absolute rubbish. Current law is that a party cannot enter into a contract on behalf of a third party. i.e. registered keeper of a vehicle cannot be held liable for a breach of a contract entered into by the driver of a vehicle. Secondly, the CPS V Thomas has been quoted ad norsium by the PPC's since their one victory, but it was in a county court which cannot be seen to set a precedent. There have been several defeats for them despite their reliance on this case.

 

Let them take you to court, it will just give them another defeat to think about.

[Al27]

Perky's usual templated rubbish.

 

Why do you want to write back to them? You shouldn't have written to them in the first place. If you were to write the most wonderful bit of legalise, they'd only end up having a good laugh at it in the office.

 

They know they're running a [problem]. Educating them about it is pointless.

[lamma]

Has Perky ahem 'moved' from advising Excel onto advising APCOA ? Or maybe they both sign up to his PPCs Only information sharing website Welcome to PPC pure rubbish as usual. PPCs quoting irrelevant 'agency' stuff - very very very few drivers act as an agent of the owner. The irony is that PPCs almost never act as agent of the landowner (see the recent Excel case) and so don't have any legal authority to pursue their business anyway !! if you owned land would you give a PPC proprietary rights or agency status ? you would have to mad and senile to do it ! stop communicating with these jokers. if you want to look up some case law try Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik .v. United International Pictures [2003] EWCA Civ 1669 and then read OFT .v. Abbey National and yes all the BPA member PPCs know about the above two cases.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Cool ... I've never replied except my letter to the DVLA ... RE: relaease of reg Keeper details to a PPC .. disgusted!

 

I feel much better reading these threads

[buzby]

Writing to the DVLA is another futile exercise, as they simply refer you to their policies on the lawful release of driver information. The REAL issue is that PPC's can get this information at all - they need to tighten up 'reasonable cause' to prvvent such commercial exploitation (by both the parking companies, and of course, themselves!)

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

I'll refer you to my letter to the DVLA .. I think this is only the start ..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2138387.html

[buzby]

I'm aware of it - however, you are missing the point.

 

Irrespective of whether the BPA member firms comply with their own guidelines, none of this has anything to do with the release of data which if the fee is paid, can be legitimately be supplied by the DVLA to anyone.

 

I agree that giving the information for the collection of otherwise unenforceable parking 'tickets' can hardly be described as a legitimate purpose, but whether by accident or design, we can either restrict the information so that ONLY law enforcement gets the information, and this meant we all lose, as I wo';t be able to trace someone who - say, steals my car by misrepresentation and re-registers it.

 

The DVLA are working within the rules - what we need to do is get Parliament to change the game play, because DVLA will still be able to do what they do now, until this changes.

[lamma]

It does have to do with the ATA status of the BPA though.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

I'm aware of it - however, you are missing the point.

 

No offence but I am not missing the point .. I fully understand the essence of MY PERSONAL DATA for HIRE ... I am no expert but I made a judgement call (I did ask for advice) and that letter was the result. It is only the start .. Data Protection then what .. i don't know but willing to learn and invest some time and money

 

No hard feelings but don't judge me I'm a newbie

 

All the best

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

we can either restrict the information so that ONLY law enforcement gets the information, and this meant we all lose, as I wo';t be able to trace someone who - say, steals my car by misrepresentation and re-registers it.

 

Theft by misrepresention is un-lawful .. illegal etc = criminal!

 

I can't accept your assertions sorry!!

[buzby]

No hard feelings but don't judge me I'm a newbie

 

All the best

 

None taken, and I didn't for one minute think you were. Wat you are trying to prove have been a well trodden path and (so far) resulted in no success whatever - so this is hardly 'fresh' grounds in which to mount a campaign.

[buzby]

Theft by misrepresenting is un-lawful .. illegal etc = criminal!

 

I can't accept your assertions sorry!!

 

Indeed it is - but if it only is your opinion you are going on, you're going to need a lot more learned minds to agree before anything is done. As the chances of that are slim (for the reasons previously outlined), there needs to be some form of 'test' where there is no room for 'reasonableness' to apply. It either does or it doesn't. Only then will you achieve what you want.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Writing to the DVLA is another futile exercise, as they simply refer you to their policies on the lawful release of driver information. The REAL issue is that PPC's can get this information at all - they need to tighten up 'reasonable cause' to prvvent such commercial exploitation (by both the parking companies, and of course, themselves!)

 

Ok so what would you propose? I think writing to the DVLA is the only worthwhile step. I am questioning the release of my private data to a 3rd party who does not adhere to the DVLA guidelines i.e. Code of Practise.

 

I'll write to my MP next but I refuse to enter into communication with the BPA, PPC or their Debt Collectors.

[buzby]

Bypass them. I wrote to my MP (using the MySociety website) this sent a fully trackable line of correspondence. Whilst there's no guarantee your MP will do anything, I was impressed with mine - a LibDem who raised it with the transport minister and is pushing the matter forward. To give the DVLA a dose of their own medicine, we need to pull the rug from underneath them, and Parliament is the way to achieve this.