Letter from a debt collector on behalf of Excel, owner of vehicle mentally disabled

[emkin]

Hello

 

i have followed your advice about ignoring letters from Excel but now we have received a letter from a debt collecting company saying that in the "absence of payment or any valid dispute" they will "pursue the matter".

 

The letters are all addressed to my father who is the owner of the vehicle but is not allowed to drive because he is classed as mentally disabled after a motorbike accident. Several people are therefore on his insurance policy to drive him around. Can we argue that he does not know/remember who was driving the vehicle and as a mentally disabled person he cannot be liable?

 

Many thanks

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Yes you can argue this but I would like to see you continue to ignore.

 

I'm not too sure that a mental disability absolves liability though.

 

Raises some interesting thoughts on "Owner Liability" for LA issued PCNs though which I know this is not.

[londoncass]

argue what? You are not in anyway legally obliged to tell me or any other random 3rd party (including Excel) who is driving. IT is their responsibility to prove who is driving ... and they have no legal powers to carry out investigations or force people to tell them under oath!!!!

 

Let them chase your father all the way. If they take it to court (which they wont) the case would be dismissed as soon as you can prove your Dad was not the driver.

 

Remember, debt collectors have absolutely no powers. They are just agressive individuals who are paid comission and so bend the truth to make you think you must pay!!!!

[gwc1000]

I agree. Continue to ignore.

[emkin]

Wow, thanks for the really quick replies guys!!

 

i remember reading somewhere amongst all the other threads that the owner of the vehicle cannot be held liable on private carparks and that when Excel write in their letters "you are liable as owner of the vehicle" that this is a lie, but i can't find that post anymore, could you possibly give me some tips on where to find the exact legal regulations on this?

 

Also, i read something in the letter templates thread about behaving reasonably. The debt collector's are saying "If we do not hear from you within 7 days we will pass the matter to our solicitors, who will review your case for potential legal action". It therefore seems a bit unreasonable not to reply... Would it not be reasonable to reply saying that my father was not the driver, is mentally incapacitated, cannot drive and does not know who was driving?

 

Thanks again!

[JonCris]

DO NOT respond in anyway otherwise they'll never leave you alone.

 

Please accept the advice already given here that they have no legal right whatsoever to demand from you or anyone else payment. They certainly have no legal entitlment to demand the details of the person who may have been driving on the date in question

 

& even if the owner IS mentally ill that's none of their business Also if you did you could be in breach of the law by divulging such highly confidential info without the subjects consent which it would appear they can't give as they don't have capacity

 

& last but not least it's not a good idea to let strangers know that there is a vunerable person at that address as who knows what might happen ................ the drive tarmac:rolleyes: .............. the roof repaired:rolleyes: all costing thousands of pounds........... need I go on:cool:

Edited September 28, 2009 by JonCris

[JonCris]

argue what? You are not in anyway legally obliged to tell me or any other random 3rd party (including Excel) who is driving. IT is their responsibility to prove who is driving ... and they have no legal powers to carry out investigations or force people to tell them under oath!!!!

 

Let them chase your father all the way. If they take it to court (which they wont) the case would be dismissed as soon as you can prove your Dad was not the driver.

 

Remember, debt collectors have absolutely no powers. They are just agressive individuals who are paid comission and so bend the truth to make you think you must pay!!!!

 

Whilst I agree whith most of your comments I would point out that the original poster doesn't have to 'prove' anything, if anything it's for Excel to 'prove' who was driving NOT the otherway round & even then they'd have to prove a valid contract existed between them & the driver

[emkin]

okey dokey, will follow your advice, especially about revealing his condition, thanks for that!

If we get a solicitor's letter i suppose we'll have to reply though, so i'll just say he is the owner but cannot drive the vehicle as he has no licence and he doesn't know who was driving.

[JonCris]

Oh my gawd ............NO you won't have to reply to anyones letter, even a solicitor. Anyone can get a 'solicitors' letter sent for a few quid. In your case it would be meaningless as they would have no more status than Excel which amounts to now't as they still have to establish who was driving & if a contract was entered into but if you do then come back here I we'll tell you if or how you should respond

 

Perhaps because your new here you don't realize but some here on this site who give free advice are lawyers

[emkin]

oh ok, didn't realise that. Was thinking about getting our solicitor to reply in the case of a letter from theirs but then i thought our solicitor would probably charge us the same for a letter as the original £40 fine. Ok, will come back to you if we get a solicitor's letter from them.

[Al27]

In summary:

• it is a mail [problem]

• there is no 'fine', only a charge which is completely unenforceable

• the keeper was not the driver and has nothing to do with the charge

• Excel's paperwork is unlawful. Claiming the keeper is liable is actually fraud under the 2006 Fraud Act

• ignore everything and if hell froze over and it went to court, your defence would be more solid than diamond. But it won't go to court anyway - the letters will just dry up and they'll move onto another victim.

[londoncass]

Whilst I agree whith most of your comments I would point out that the original poster doesn't have to 'prove' anything, if anything it's for Excel to 'prove' who was driving NOT the otherway round & even then they'd have to prove a valid contract existed between them & the driver

 

I said that! Though if it went to court you would have to reply to the defence stating why it was incorrect and then show evidence to prove why they were not the driver...

[emkin]

Great thanks!

Haven't understood the difference between keeper and owner but will follow your advice and do nothing.

i really don't want my dad to have to go through the ordeal of a court appearance though....

[londoncass]

in your case, the difference between the keeper and owner is irrelivant. They have got your Dads details from the DVLA and are writing to him hoping he'll just believe the rubbish and think that he is responsible for all the drivers (like the police/council tickets) and pay up.

 

It will never get to court... but if it did, you can tell the courts that your father is unable to attend due to his disability... the judge would probably throw it out before it even got to that stage!!!

[Al27]

For all intents and purposes, they are the same. It's just that the owner may not necessarily be the keeper.

 

This is a mail [problem] though - court is economically unviable for them. I doubt your father would have to get involved if he isn't fit anyway.

[emkin]

That's what i thought, reassuring to hear you say so too though!

[Barsteward]

okey dokey, will follow your advice, especially about revealing his condition, thanks for that!

If we get a solicitor's letter i suppose we'll have to reply though, so i'll just say he is the owner but cannot drive the vehicle as he has no licence and he doesn't know who was driving.

If you'd care to look you'll see several people got a letter from Roxburghe's linked to Excel this last week. And yes, i speak from experience. Some for a carpark where Excel were exposed, again on here.

 

If i sent you an official looking letter demanding money, would you pay me?? Of course not.

Now do yourself and your family a big favour and file the nonsense away and ignore.

[dx100uk]

agreed

 

ignore totally

 

dx

[JonCris]

I said that! Though if it went to court you would have to reply to the defence stating why it was incorrect and then show evidence to prove why they were not the driver...

 

 

No you don't THEY have to PROVE you were, prove being the operative word. Just because your the registered keeper doesn't mean your liable & even then as Excel have already found out to their cost their 'contract' both with the driver AND the land owner would have to be enforceable

Edited September 29, 2009 by JonCris

[londoncass]

Well I aint going to argue, but it would be a pretty poor reply to the defence if you didn't submit a reason why them saying the disabled father wasn't the driver.... the judge isn't psychic, he's going to want to see the reason why you state he wasn't!! There is no point in holding back that sort of evidence!

[pin1onu]

I said that! Though if it went to court you would have to reply to the defence stating why it was incorrect and then show evidence to prove why they were not the driver...

In a civil claim the onus of proof is on the claimant. Both parties are assumed to be telling the truth. It is sufficient to deny their claim.

 

They can't just show up in court and say the registered keeper was the driver. The first thing a judge will ask them is How do you know? And as one PPC (of porcine persuasion) found out "We just do" will not suffice.

 

Only if they have some form of evidence they can present e.g. CCTV footage and a clear identification of a driver from a third party (otherwise the face in the picture is just a face) and/or a letter naming the driver will a claimant be entitled to conclude the RK and the driver are one and the same.

[JonCris]

Sorry mate you have little understanding of how the law works. The judge will want to see proof, from the claimant Excel, of who the driver 'was' not who wasn't & even then it's doubtful that Excels contract is enforceable

[londoncass]

I accept that... but the in these circumstances I would suggest they just get it thrown out at the first available chance... We all know PPCs aren't the most honest people ever and may fabricate the evidence !!

[JonCris]

Yes but to claim the keeper doesn't remember may also be stretching credibility to an extreme & statements if proven false, may land the keeper in more trouble namely perjury. In addition as pin & I say it's upto them to prove who the driver was. Failure to do so would be enough to have the case thrown out at the outset

Edited September 29, 2009 by JonCris

[Zamzara]

IMO the 'not the driver defence' is weak if the keeper was the driver (otherwise it's sound). The judge could perfectly reasonably decide that on the balance of probabilities the keeper was the driver if there is no evidence otherwise.