DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12140--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 9, 2023, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: slapdash link ---
>
> Probably none. But why does it matter?
--- End Quote ---
It matters hugely if a court may or may not compel me to do
something which no law permits them to do.
--- Quote from: slapdash link ---
> I think the judge can probably ask whatever they like. I
believe it has been asked.
>
--- End Quote ---
And if when asked I ask if there is a law which compels me to
answer?
If there isn't (and so far I've only found that there is wrt
prosecution for RTA offences), and I respond that as I am not
compelled to I decline to?
#Post#: 12203--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: December 11, 2023, 10:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Scientist and Saint link ---
>
> [quote author=slapdash link=topic=1090.msg12136#msg12136
date=1702149825]
> Probably none. But why does it matter?
--- End Quote ---
It matters hugely if a court may or may not compel me to do
something which no law permits them to do.
[/quote]
This isn't a criminal matter its civil, the law permits them to
ask you and if your there as a witness to answer, even if you
aren't acting as a witness they can still ask you. This is
about determining liability fairly, not hiding behind legal
skirts.
If you won't answer the Judge is at liberty to imply whatever
inference they feel like and may well (will very likely) on
balance of probabilities determine you were driving.
Common sense by the way says they should keep harassing you
hoping you'll pay, not just give up.
#Post#: 12265--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 12, 2023, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One wonders then what is the point of them pursuing me on the
grounds that PoFA says they can hold me liable.
One wonders then what was ever the point of Schedule 4 of PoFA
if they can just initiate proceedings against the keeper and
succeed in court because on the balance of probabilities the
keeper would have been the driver.
#Post#: 12267--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 12, 2023, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Scientist and Saint link ---
>
> One wonders then what was ever the point of Schedule 4 of PoFA
if they can just initiate proceedings against the keeper and
succeed in court because on the balance of probabilities the
keeper would have been the driver.
>
--- End Quote ---
One of the other Schedules of PoFA outlawed clamping on private
land (finally!) - as an alternative to holding someone's car to
ransom, Schedule 4 provided a mechanism to prevent those in
receipt of a parking charge simply ignoring it, or saying
"wasn't me driving guv'", and there being no mechanism to then
recover the charge.
Compliance with PoFA is not mandatory, but without it, they can
only hold the driver liable. They don't have any evidence of who
that driver is, but some do proceed on what they describe as the
"reasonable assumption" that the keeper and the driver are the
same person. Their logic here is usually that if the keeper was
not the driver, he would have said so, as this would strengthen
his case considerably, and so the fact he has not implies that
he was in fact the driver. How reasonable this logic is remains
open for discussion, but if you're unlucky and get the wrong
judge they may well agree with this logic. Equally, as has been
suggested above, get the wrong judge, and they may have little
patience for what they consider trivial technicalities and
simply ask if you were indeed the driver. I'd suggest the
chances of this might increase where this was the only defence
point, and the driver was clearly in breach of the terms and
conditions.
We only see a very small portion of all of the cases that go to
court, and of those the results can vary even in cases with
similar circumstances, so it's hard to predict what would
happen, but it's important to be aware of the risks involved.
Your arguments are not wrong as such, but going to court relying
solely on an argument that is basically "prove it was me
driving" carries risk, as the judge only has to find that you
were on the balance of probabilities, a much lower bar than
beyond reasonable doubt.
#Post#: 12271--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 12, 2023, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The purposive approach has its roots in legal systems based on
civil codes. It is a method of statutory interpretation which
considers the purpose of the provision and interprets the
provision in accordance with that purpose.
One of many definitions you will find.
#Post#: 12304--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: December 13, 2023, 1:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Scientist and Saint link ---
>
> One wonders then what was ever the point of Schedule 4 of PoFA
if they can just initiate proceedings against the keeper and
succeed in court because on the balance of probabilities the
keeper would have been the driver.
>
--- End Quote ---
Because if the keeper was not the driver they can still hold
them liable if they comply, S4 was never about providing some
form of a technical defence to the driver which, to be honest,
is what you seem to be seeking. Keepers were taken to court
before PoFA anyway.
#Post#: 12305--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: December 13, 2023, 2:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. But a PPC that decides not to use POFA makes a rod for
its own back. As claimant it is needs to prove on the balance of
probability that the defendant was driving.
#Post#: 12325--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 13, 2023, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, it's much more fundamental.
If a creditor reasonably believes that the keeper was the driver
when they start to pursue the alleged debt then it's an abuse of
process to issue a spurious PCN addressed to the keeper dressed
up in PoFA-like references, but not PoFA itself, to embroil the
keeper in their claim. Even worse, possibly to go to IAS with a
claim against the keeper and then to have a miraculous epiphany
on the road to court such that their claim is transformed from
one against the driver to one against the keeper-cum-driver
especially if they offer any evidence obtained from the keeper
post issuing their PCN.
Clean hands, my a**e.
#Post#: 12578--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 17, 2023, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: The Rookie link ---
> Have BWL issued a letter of claim or acting as mere debt
collectors (as seems likely), if the latter then why are you
wasting breath on them, they don't know any facts and will just
say anything in the hope you'll pay.
--- End Quote ---
Except they do know the facts, as I've sent them a copy of the
DVLA letter.
#Post#: 12579--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 17, 2023, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
> Their logic here is usually that if the keeper was not the
driver, he would have said so, as this would strengthen his case
considerably, and so the fact he has not implies that he was in
fact the driver.
>
--- End Quote ---
There could be a good reason why the keeper would not identify
the driver even if it were not them.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page