It may be *provided* by the original lender, but you can and should still request it from them. If they are allowed to collect on the debt, then they will be able to get it. They have an obligation under the CCA to fulfil your request. Send them the request (don't sign it with your usual signature) and a £1 postal order, they can forward the request on to the original creditor themselves (which should add a few days to their side of the process. )

Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket

You couldn't have looked too hard, it appears to be on your own website!

Leaving aside the morals, lets get down to law. They cannot default you. To allege that one was in default of a contract would require there a contract. How can one be in default of the T&C's of a contract that they cannot prove you agreed to?

I'm afraid so. You can only do one of the other. Either the agreement exists and you can claim against it, or it doesn't.

Bye, watch the door on the way out.

I missed this. Ooohhhh! I'm a foreigner, I forgot all about that. Maybe I should just p155 off back home. I never realised that I could just walk away!

I would amend the claim to include that the CCA wasn't complied with. This is an absolute defence, however, since a judgement had already taken place, I don't know if it would work as well. I would also wait for someone more knowledgeable than I to come along and advise!

Sorry, that's about as good as my knowledge gets at the moment. I think Rory had a good letter advising them that they are committing an offence by trying to collect. They normally back off at that stage.

It should do, they will be committing an offence under Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act if they try to collect money on an unenforceable debt.

I stopped reading after that. You clearly don't know the data protection act. You need to go read up. So, I can then do a search on who ever I want, as long as I don't divulge that information? Twaddle.

Yep, as they are council and work for the public you can issue disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. You'd be amazed at the kind of stuff you can find out. That is a truly great act!

I'm sure the driver would fell proud or contrite, depending on who it was. But that's the whole point though, we don't know who it is. Would you happily pay for it? My MIL sure doesn't want to pay for it, and why should she?

Well, it doesn't really bother me, they're chasing a blind woman for a parking ticket. They'll look really stupid if they ever take it to court.

Of course, the word "penalty" in penalty charge notice tends to imply otherwise.

Well, being that it is free to park there the charge has already paid, and they saved the cost of a 2"x2" piece of paper.

Gertie, could you please tell me who was driving, as this is proving to be too much hassle. I'll then just get the driver to pay and be done. P.S. in case you were still unclear, it wasn't me.

1. My MIL is blind, the car is owned by motability, leased to her. 2. I am one of three designated drivers for the vehicle. 3. I never got the ticket, my MIL got a letter from the parking company. Assumption, the mother of all....

Um, no I'm not liable, the driver is. The parking lot in question is free, the driver just needs to get a ticket.

Of course, we could say the same about the bank charges. You read the terms, you accept the charges.

Also, Traffic Acts do not apply unless there is a Local Authority Off Street Parking Order in effect.

I think perky88 is referring to Section 172 of the road traffic act: Section 172, road traffic act. (1) This section applies— (a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except— (i) an offence under Part V, or (ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117, and to an offence under section 178 of this Act, (b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and © to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads. (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. In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle. (3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was. (4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence. However, section 172 only covers offences, not civil matters, and can only be requested by the chief of police or someone acting on his behalf.

Well, being that the defendant is blind I think we *may* just get away with claiming it wasn't her.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for. I have invited them to take us to court or shut up. (I was a bit more diplomatic) I have also advised them that they have one more letter, then I will charge for my time, and invoice them. Let's see.

Thank you, sometimes it's hard to keep focused!