Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


blues79

PCN: Driver on a balance of probabilities

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4039 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rest assured that we will pursue this matter.
Uh-huh. Sure you will.

For the OP:

 

On your marks.

 

Get set.

 

Ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The balance of probabilities term is used by the County Court Judge to determine the likelihood of events occurring.

 

What they seem to be forgetting is that the onus of proof is on them. As this will be a civil case they must provide adequate substiantation of the debt. They cannot proceed if they suspect you are the driver, only if they know and have proof that you were. If they do go to court then they have to present all the evidence to you and the court before hand.

 

Of course if you have replied to them you have to make sure you don't inadvertently identify the driver (even if it was you)

 

IMV it won't go to court they are trying to intimidate you. This sounds like nothing more than a fishing for information request with a veiled threat.

If they cannot prove you were the driver and they are silly enough to proceed to court then you would be entitled to seek dismissal of the claim on the basis that they haven't established privity of contract.

 

BTW they will look silly if they don't have any evidence. This happened in recent case.

 

 

Judge: How do you know the defendant was the driver

 

PPC: We just do

 

Judge: Privity of Contract not established case dismissed

 

In any case the privity issue is one of may hurdles that they have to overcome. There are a number of issues that PPCs face that make their legal position flawed.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore

ignore

ignore

 

it is not a PCN, it's a PPC - Private Parking Contract = CON trick!!

 

you did NOT sign a contract when you drove in!!

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...