Thread: PCN: Driver on a balance of probabilities

Hi all,

I'm new to this site and recently received a pcn from CMS for parking in a private car park. I initially ignored the charge of £50 and it has subsequently increased £130. I have written to them asking them to prove to me who the driver was at the time as it could be a number of people driving the vehicle. I also asked them to how they felt that the penalty charge reflected the costs incurred by parking in the space and requested a detailed Breakdown of this.

I then received the following in reply:

"We are writing in connection with the above parking notice charge and your letter. We note that you confirm that you are the registered keeper but are refusing to confirm whether or not you were the driver.

As you are the registered keeper of the vehicle we our entitled to proceed on the basis that it is more likely than not that you were also the driver of the vehicle. We would point out that in connection with civil claims we our obliged to prove that you were the driver on a balance of probabilities i.e. that it was more likely than not that you were the driver of the vehicle in question. We are satisfied that you were the driver of the vehicle as your credibility must be in serious doubt bearing in mind the nature of your response and the following reasons:-

1. You fail to identify the driver in question when this information should obviously be within your knowledge if you were not in fact driving the vehicle on the day in question,
2. You have failed to produce any evidence from any third party that that individual was indeed the driver. For Example, you have failed to produce a witness statement or even a letter from the driver confirming that they infact were driving the vehicle and the vehicle was not driven by the registered keeper.

We are therefore satisfied that we will be able to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that you were the driver of the vehicle.

Payment now stands at £130.00, please forward payment within the next 7 days to avoid further action.

Rest assured that we will pursue this matter as we have a contractual duty to the land owner to enforce relevant parking restrictions.”

Could anyone recommend how I respond to this? I still haven't received any justification of their charge either.

Thanks

Ok, if you had never contacted CMS you would have received a 'Notice' and then a 'Final Notice'. Then they would have gone away. They are one of the weaker, less persistent parking companies working out of a little house in Lytham.

We've seen their standard template letter of rubbish before.

Your next move - ignore them completely and do not contact them again. It's a [problem].

Ignore and they will go away and move onto their next victim.

Originally Posted by CMS

Rest assured that we will pursue this matter.

Uh-huh. Sure you will.
For the OP:

On your marks.

Get set.

Ignore.

Thanks for your response.

Will they not persist now though seeing that I have already replied? Can they even continue on the basis of probabilities that I was the driver? I thought that they had to prove that I was the driver. There are another 2 people who drive my car so I'm not sure how they could prove that anyway.

Thanks

No chance of court.

[problem] revolves around their victims thinking they would. Of course, they'd have 0.1% of winning even if they did take a punt.

Their legal rubbish merely refers to that fact that CIVIL cases are based upon the balance of probabilities whereas CRIMINAL cases are based upon beyond reasonable doubt.

So what? Everybody knows that anyway. It's just designed to intimidate, like all their junkmail.

Ignore.

Thanks for all your comments. I will ignore this letter and see what follows. I suspect they might threaten a debt collection agency or further court action but it sounds like they don't have any ground to make the claim. I haven't identified the driver in the correspondence, just asked if they could prove who was and I got the response above.

Thanks again

blues79

I don't think CMS use debt collectors. They usually send two letters and give up, although we've seen a couple of people get your templated letter from the solicitors round the corner.

Clear breach of BPA CoP. This has caused "case dismissed" to be declared. see FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned and http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...blems+ppc+face ignore them from now on.