Thread: Parking ticket

Hi guys, i have been given a parking ticket whilst parked no a single yellow line in town, i was parked there for 10 minutes tops whilst i quickly popped in on someone, if there where adequate parking in the area that would be one thing but theres no where else to park, what makes it worse is the car isnt mine i have been borrowing it, im currently out of work so just cannot afford this, is there anything i can do? is the ticket attached to the owner of the car or the driver at the time?

Pay it now - you can save hassling the real owner as they will write to him if it is not paid. If you don't he'll be asked to provide your details, so it's best to bite the bullet.

Well it is always worth posting a copy of the pcn up here along with a pic of the signage in the road so that the PCN experts can check it for legalities before you rush into paying it.

Originally Posted by buzby

If you don't he'll be asked to provide your details, so it's best to bite the bullet.

Not for a pcn. The owner will have liability once the NtO is issued - he can't pass this onto the driver (except in limited circumstances eg hire company)

The owner will have liability once the NtO is issued - he can't pass this onto the driver (except in limited circumstances eg hire company)

Financial liability. The owner can pass the paperwork across to the driver to deal with if he wants to appeal (wise to check he does actually deal with it though)

Which is why, in the case of a borrowed car, it is best to not cause problems in the friendship by leaving him with the bill. On a slight pedantic note Pat, the owner is immaterial to this. It is the RK that receives the curiously named 'NTO' and we all know the RK and owner are not always the same.

Originally Posted by buzby

On a slight pedantic note Pat, the owner is immaterial to this. It is the RK that receives the curiously named 'NTO' and we all know the RK and owner are not always the same.

I'm afraid that your slightly pedantic note is wrong.

It is the owner who is liable.

The Act defines the owner as the RK, unless the contrary is proved.

Thanks for quoting in full my response. Clearly you are reading much into what isn't there. So it most certainly isn't 'wrong'. There is no Statutory list of vehicle owners, there is a separate database held by the DVLA who note various 'interests' in registered vehicles, but this is not shown on the V5, and as far as I am aware, this information is generally unavailable.

Therefore, we have a system of vehicle registration that has been designed to publicly record a 'Registered Keeper', not the owner, user, ultimate owner or indeed its 'usual address'.

The Act may certainly state that 'the owner is liable'. However, as there is no formal record of who the owner actually IS, this becomes a circular argument. As to proving that an RK isn't an owner, do tell me how anyone could prove a negative. There are a good number of firms who will (for a fee) provide an address for an RK to counteract DVLA's policy of flogging their details to PPC's. These RKs are clearly NOT the owners, therefor sending a NTO is a leap of faith at best, it may or may not reach the owner, and as for your suggestion that the RK must prove that they are not the owner, what do you a suggest - a letter saying "I do not own this vehicle'? I can see a lot of finance houses not in a rush to prove 'ownership'.

Just because an Act says something doesn't make it sensible, or indeed rational.

Originally Posted by buzby

Thanks for quoting in full my response. Clearly you are reading much into what isn't there. So it most certainly isn't 'wrong'. There is no Statutory list of vehicle owners, there is a separate database held by the DVLA who note various 'interests' in registered vehicles, but this is not shown on the V5, and as far as I am aware, this information is generally unavailable.

Therefore, we have a system of vehicle registration that has been designed to publicly record a 'Registered Keeper', not the owner, user, ultimate owner or indeed its 'usual address'.

The Act may certainly state that 'the owner is liable'. However, as there is no formal record of who the owner actually IS, this becomes a circular argument. As to proving that an RK isn't an owner, do tell me how anyone could prove a negative. There are a good number of firms who will (for a fee) provide an address for an RK to counteract DVLA's policy of flogging their details to PPC's. These RKs are clearly NOT the owners, therefor sending a NTO is a leap of faith at best, it may or may not reach the owner, and as for your suggestion that the RK must prove that they are not the owner, what do you a suggest - a letter saying "I do not own this vehicle'? I can see a lot of finance houses not in a rush to prove 'ownership'.

Just because an Act says something doesn't make it sensible, or indeed rational.

Oh dear.

TMA 2004 s.92

“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

No register of owners is required. The Act is quite definite that for the purposes of the Act, the owner is defined as the RK unless the contrary can be proved.

It comparatively easy to prove.

I am the RK of the car I drive, I tax and insure it and pay the running costs. But I am not the owner (as defined in the Act) - somebody else's name is on the invoice for it's purchase (which proves "the contrary" to the assumption).