URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 59032--------------------------------------------------
       Parking Company stating assumption 
   DIR By: Sander333
       Date: February 20, 2025, 8:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       A Private Parking Charge notice has been challenged and the
       Registered Keeper has decided not to name the driver.
       They have appealed and had a reply from the Private Parking
       company, the penultimate paragraph states the parking charge
       notice has been issued under contract law as a breach of parking
       conditions in the UK and they can obtain keeper details under
       reasonable cause criteria under the assumption of them being the
       driver whereby a PCN can be issued within 6 months of the
       incident date to the driver of the vehicle.
       I am wondering if this is correct and whether the DVLA is aware
       and condones this action. I know that these companies try
       Elliott vs Loake as an assumption but this is not correct. I am
       also wondering where the 6 months limit applies.
       Any views before further action is taken and the matter be
       addressed on Private Parking forum
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 59034--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Company stating assumption 
   DIR By: DWMB2
       Date: February 20, 2025, 8:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Just post in the private parking forum - it'll mostly be the
       same people providing advice, and taking views in the Flame Pit
       then following up with a separate post elsewhere on the same
       forum just needlessly complicates things. I'll move this post
       there now. Please post up all the relevant details as per: READ
       THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
       #Post#: 59037--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Company stating assumption 
   DIR By: Sander333
       Date: February 20, 2025, 9:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Was discussing a previous PCN with someone when advice was asked
       for I will get them to Post up for full advice.
       #Post#: 59091--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Company stating assumption 
   DIR By: b789
       Date: February 20, 2025, 1:52 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The parking company’s claim is incorrect and misleading. The
       DVLA allows private parking companies to obtain keeper details
       under the reasonable cause criterion, but this does not mean
       they can assume the keeper was the driver. The DVLA has
       previously confirmed that providing keeper details does not
       imply driver liability.
       There is no six-month time limit for issuing a private parking
       charge under contract law. They may be confusing this with
       statutory penalties (e.g., council-issued PCNs) or criminal
       offences, which have a six-month enforcement period. For private
       parking, the limitation period is generally six years under the
       Limitation Act 1980.
       Historically, the British Parking Association (BPA) required its
       members to issue a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) within 7 months
       of the alleged parking contravention if they were not relying on
       the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to establish keeper
       liability. This timeframe was specified in the BPA's Code of
       Practice and applied to operators seeking to enforce parking
       charges through means other than PoFA.
       If they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
       (PoFA) for keeper liability, then they can only pursue the
       driver. Their reference to "assumption" is likely an attempt to
       misuse Elliott v Loake (1982), which does not apply to private
       parking cases. If they continue to claim this, a complaint to
       the DVLA and their ATA (BPA or IPC) would be advisable.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1