DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 109078--------------------------------------------------
VCS v Edward - Hirer rather than Registered Keeper
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: February 8, 2026, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies if this is in the wrong place, please feel free to
move it if necessary.
Obviously VCS v Edward is a persuasive argument in terms of
protecting the RK from being inferred to be the driver at any
given time, purely because they are the RK. Hence the consistent
advice to avoid naming the driver, thus forcing the evidential
burden onto the Parking Company to show who was driving.
However, is there anything similar, decided case wise, in
relation to a Hirer or are there any cases where the VCS
principle has been applied more widely to include the Hirer to
offer the same interpretation and protection?
#Post#: 109184--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS v Edward - Hirer rather than Registered Keeper
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 9, 2026, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think one could make an argument that the same reasoning that
led the judge in the appeal case of VCS v Edward to conclude
that no inference could be drawn as to who was driving in that
case could be applied to a case involving a hired vehicle.
Paragraph #35 seems relevant:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/sJ9cdNzT/Screenshot-2026-02-09-113051.png
HTML https://ibb.co/PzGJvP02
HTML https://i.ibb.co/HphQdfPg/Screenshot-2026-02-09-113129.png
HTML https://ibb.co/cXYdLS8T
One could argue it is more likely for the hirer to be the driver
in certain cases, but in the same nature as the Edward judge's
reasoning, if an automatic inference could be drawn, there would
be no real need for PoFA in the first place.
#Post#: 109449--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS v Edward - Hirer rather than Registered Keeper
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: February 11, 2026, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That was very much the conclusion I had come to but I haven’t
been able to find anything definitive, legal context wise, to
support that view and I don’t want to be just interpreting it in
a way that suited the circumstances I’m looking at currently.
So it’s good to see someone else with considerably more
experience than me, sharing that view.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1