Creatures Quiz St Andrews Church
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Parking Ticket...owner Resonsible?
Hello. I have a parking ticket issued by a council. I was not driving the vehicle, a self employed driver was delivering the vehicle and it can be shown that he was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence. I understand that the owner may be responsible for the ticket...where do I stand legally? I did not make the choice to park illegally and so should not be charged a fine for doing so. The driver no longer works for us - she left the following day without reporting the ticket to us.
Also if this is correct (and I am not sure that it is correct) can someone explain the logic that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the irresponsible actions of a driver of the vehicle. Is the owner also responsble for speeding fines? Is the owner responsible if the vehicle is involved in a crime? If it is correct it is a ridiculous law! Any help or comments appreciated as always... thanks in advance
Also if this is correct (and I am not sure that it is correct) can someone explain the logic that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the irresponsible actions of a driver of the vehicle. Is the owner also responsble for speeding fines? Is the owner responsible if the vehicle is involved in a crime? If it is correct it is a ridiculous law! Any help or comments appreciated as always... thanks in advance
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by akajonnyg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As owner or Registered Keeper it is your legal obligation to know who was driving your vehicle at the time of an offence and you are legally obliged to pass the details of the driver to the relevant people.
That should be the end of your obligation.
If you refuse to pass on those details you would ultimately be responsible for paying fines and can have points on your licence for speeding, as an example.
That should be the end of your obligation.
If you refuse to pass on those details you would ultimately be responsible for paying fines and can have points on your licence for speeding, as an example.
Yes a recent change to he law makes the registered keeper responsible for the payment of parking fines levied by local authorities (but not those issued by private parking companies).
Speeding fines and penalty points cannot be levied against the registered keeper unless he accepts being the driver. However, Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act places an obligation on the registered keeper to provide the details of the person driving a vehicle which has been suspected of committing a number of specified traffic offences (though most usually speeding). Failure to do so within the specified time limits is an offence itself and renders the registered keeper to a fine and a minimum of six penalty points.
Speeding fines and penalty points cannot be levied against the registered keeper unless he accepts being the driver. However, Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act places an obligation on the registered keeper to provide the details of the person driving a vehicle which has been suspected of committing a number of specified traffic offences (though most usually speeding). Failure to do so within the specified time limits is an offence itself and renders the registered keeper to a fine and a minimum of six penalty points.
A slight touch of pedantry about hc's answer but there is no legal obligation on the registered keeper to know who was driving a vehicle at any particular time. The RK has an obligation to exercise "due diligence" when trying to find out but the obligation does not begin until he is asked.
To explain a bit more clearly a company, for example, has no obligation to keep records of who is driving their vehicles. If they are asked they must make every effort to find out but it cannot be held against them if they cannot do so because they did not keep records.
Further, refusal or inability to provide the details will not lead to a conviction for speeding but instead will lead to an offence under S172 - "failure to provide driver's details".
To explain a bit more clearly a company, for example, has no obligation to keep records of who is driving their vehicles. If they are asked they must make every effort to find out but it cannot be held against them if they cannot do so because they did not keep records.
Further, refusal or inability to provide the details will not lead to a conviction for speeding but instead will lead to an offence under S172 - "failure to provide driver's details".
And I forgot to add that the change in the parking law was introduced because there is no equivalent "Section 172" requirement to provide driver's details for parking offences. RK's were simply saying "I was not driving" and that was an end to the matter - the authorities had no powers to ask them who was driving and before the change they could only fine the driver.
Thanks for all your answers. Just one more question...As I can provide (and prove) and am willing to give to the authorities the details of the person that was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence I can see no fair reason why I should be held responsible for paying the fine, surely the law must be based on being fair and reasonable? So can I just pass the PCN onto the driver or inform the council of thier details? Thanks again for your answers
-- answer removed --
>>>Yes a recent change to he law makes the registered keeper responsible for the payment of parking fines levied by local authorities (but not those issued by private parking companies)
I beg to differ, NJ!
Section 9(2)f Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, giving a creditor the right to pursue an unpaid parking charge against the registered keeper of a vehicle (where that keeper does not know, or has not revealed, the identity of the driver) applies just as much to private parking operators as it does to local authorities:
http://
>>>can someone explain the logic that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the irresponsible actions of a driver of the vehicle
There was considerable concern (from motoring organisations and individual drivers, among many others) about the way that some clamping firms operated on private land. The Government therefore decided to outlaw such clamping activities. However owners of private land (such as shopping centres, supermarkets, churches, etc) expressed legitimate concerns that such a move would leave them powerless to deal with people who misused their car parks. (e.g. a supermarket could find that customers weren't able to park on its car park because football supporters had taken all of the places, thus costing the supermarket thousands of pounds in lost takings).
As the law stood at that time, the registered keeper of a vehicle could (upon receiving a charge notice in respect of unauthorised parking) simply say "I wasn't the person who parked the car on your car park [whether that was actually true or not] and I'm not telling you who did park there, so you won't get your money".
The Government agreed that the owners of car parks (and other private land) shouldn't be left powerless to control unauthorised parking, so they were given the right to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges (where the identity of the driver wasn't revealed to them) in exchange for the loss of the right to wheel-clamp vehicles.
>>>Is the owner also responsble for speeding fines?
The registered keeper of a vehicle is required to reveal the identity of the driver of that vehicle upon receipt of a 'Notice of Intended Prosecution' for speeding. If he/she fails to do so, the law assumes that he/she was driving the vehicle and he/she will be given the relevant fine & penalty points.
>>>Is the owner responsible if the vehicle is involved in a crime?
Some offences include the words 'cause or permit' within the relevant legislation. So if, for example, you fail to check that your friend has adequate insurance cover before permitting him to drive your car [and he hasn't] you will face the same penalty as him (which is usually a £200 fine and 6 penalty points).
Where 'cause or permit' isn't within the relevant legislation, the CPS would normally have to prove that you knew that your vehicle was to be used in a crime to be able to prosecute you for it. (e.g. if you allow someone to use your car to kidnap a victim, you're just as guilty as the kidnapper).
I beg to differ, NJ!
Section 9(2)f Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, giving a creditor the right to pursue an unpaid parking charge against the registered keeper of a vehicle (where that keeper does not know, or has not revealed, the identity of the driver) applies just as much to private parking operators as it does to local authorities:
http://
>>>can someone explain the logic that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the irresponsible actions of a driver of the vehicle
There was considerable concern (from motoring organisations and individual drivers, among many others) about the way that some clamping firms operated on private land. The Government therefore decided to outlaw such clamping activities. However owners of private land (such as shopping centres, supermarkets, churches, etc) expressed legitimate concerns that such a move would leave them powerless to deal with people who misused their car parks. (e.g. a supermarket could find that customers weren't able to park on its car park because football supporters had taken all of the places, thus costing the supermarket thousands of pounds in lost takings).
As the law stood at that time, the registered keeper of a vehicle could (upon receiving a charge notice in respect of unauthorised parking) simply say "I wasn't the person who parked the car on your car park [whether that was actually true or not] and I'm not telling you who did park there, so you won't get your money".
The Government agreed that the owners of car parks (and other private land) shouldn't be left powerless to control unauthorised parking, so they were given the right to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges (where the identity of the driver wasn't revealed to them) in exchange for the loss of the right to wheel-clamp vehicles.
>>>Is the owner also responsble for speeding fines?
The registered keeper of a vehicle is required to reveal the identity of the driver of that vehicle upon receipt of a 'Notice of Intended Prosecution' for speeding. If he/she fails to do so, the law assumes that he/she was driving the vehicle and he/she will be given the relevant fine & penalty points.
>>>Is the owner responsible if the vehicle is involved in a crime?
Some offences include the words 'cause or permit' within the relevant legislation. So if, for example, you fail to check that your friend has adequate insurance cover before permitting him to drive your car [and he hasn't] you will face the same penalty as him (which is usually a £200 fine and 6 penalty points).
Where 'cause or permit' isn't within the relevant legislation, the CPS would normally have to prove that you knew that your vehicle was to be used in a crime to be able to prosecute you for it. (e.g. if you allow someone to use your car to kidnap a victim, you're just as guilty as the kidnapper).
Ooops!
"Section 9(2)f Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012... applies just as much to private parking operators as it does to local authorities"
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies solely to private landholders (and their agents) - it does not apply on the public highway or to any parking places provided or controlled by local authorities. However it may apply in limited circumstances where vehicles trespass on local authority land where no parking places are provided.
The concept of 'keeper liability' for parking fines levied by local authorities is derived from the Civil Parking Enforcement provision of The Traffic Management Act 2004.
"Section 9(2)f Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012... applies just as much to private parking operators as it does to local authorities"
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies solely to private landholders (and their agents) - it does not apply on the public highway or to any parking places provided or controlled by local authorities. However it may apply in limited circumstances where vehicles trespass on local authority land where no parking places are provided.
The concept of 'keeper liability' for parking fines levied by local authorities is derived from the Civil Parking Enforcement provision of The Traffic Management Act 2004.
I stand (partially?) corrected, ABerrant.
I was aware that the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act apply primarily to the owners of private land (but that there are some situations where they could also apply to local authorities). I was trying to avoid getting into the finer technicalities of when they might apply to local authorities, as I was replying primarily to NJ's post (rather than to the original question).
I now accept that perhaps I should have directed my answer more towards the original question (which refers to a charge levied by a council) and I thank you for saving me the trouble of finding out which Act actually applies here. (i.e. the Traffic Management Act 2004).
However it makes little difference to Akajonnyg anyway. Either he provides the required information about the driver of the vehicle or he must pay the charge!
I was aware that the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act apply primarily to the owners of private land (but that there are some situations where they could also apply to local authorities). I was trying to avoid getting into the finer technicalities of when they might apply to local authorities, as I was replying primarily to NJ's post (rather than to the original question).
I now accept that perhaps I should have directed my answer more towards the original question (which refers to a charge levied by a council) and I thank you for saving me the trouble of finding out which Act actually applies here. (i.e. the Traffic Management Act 2004).
However it makes little difference to Akajonnyg anyway. Either he provides the required information about the driver of the vehicle or he must pay the charge!
.
New Judge - good answer - No I dont think it is er pendantic to point out the obligation doesnt start until he is asked b/c THAT means he is not obliged to keep a up-to-date "who is driving what" ledger. There are on-costs to that.
The concept of 'if you cant get the driver, screw the keeper' has been around since at least RTAs of the seventies.....
New Judge - good answer - No I dont think it is er pendantic to point out the obligation doesnt start until he is asked b/c THAT means he is not obliged to keep a up-to-date "who is driving what" ledger. There are on-costs to that.
The concept of 'if you cant get the driver, screw the keeper' has been around since at least RTAs of the seventies.....
Yes I stand corrected, Chris regarding the private parking company issue. I was getting confused with the clamping rules.
However (!) I should point out that in the case of speeding it is not assumed that the RK was driving should he fail to provide driver's details. Should he fail to do so then S172 kicks in and he is charged with that offence instead. Usually the speeding charges are no longer pursued but if the prosecutors eventually establish who was driving they may continue with the speeding allegations as well.
I'm sure we'll get there in the end !!!
However (!) I should point out that in the case of speeding it is not assumed that the RK was driving should he fail to provide driver's details. Should he fail to do so then S172 kicks in and he is charged with that offence instead. Usually the speeding charges are no longer pursued but if the prosecutors eventually establish who was driving they may continue with the speeding allegations as well.
I'm sure we'll get there in the end !!!
Hi All. Thanks for your answers. I have now passed the details of the driver on to the council. What now happens if the driver simply decides not to pay the fine - who is responsible then - the logical answer is that the driver is responsible and the council persue the driver for the debt? Is this correct or can the council come back to me?
It is quite possible that it will not be the end of the matter if the parking charges cannot be successfully recovered.
Firstly the Registered Keeper (RK) must have provided sufficient details of the driver for the local authority to contact them. But the regulations do not make it at all clear what happens if the nominated driver refuses to accept that he was driving. After all, the RK could nominate somebody else who was definitely not driving and by hc's contention that would be that. The nominee (who may know nothing about the incident) would then be left to sort out the matter about which he has no knowledge. This is scarcely any better (as far as the creditor is concerned) to the previous arrangements where only the driver could be chased for the charges and the RK could refute any liability simply by saying he was not driving and nominating "A.N.Other".
The regulations to which a link has been provided give details of how creditors (i.e. the parking authority) can pursue Registered Keepers for unpaid parking charges. It says they can do so if:
(a) The creditor [the parking autority] has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
I believe that faced with the situation I described above the Local Authority would take the view that they had not been provided with sufficient details of the driver and the charges would revert to the RK. Otherwise all any RK has to do when in this situation is to nominate "D.Duck, c/o Disneyland" as the driver at the time the parking charges were levied.
Firstly the Registered Keeper (RK) must have provided sufficient details of the driver for the local authority to contact them. But the regulations do not make it at all clear what happens if the nominated driver refuses to accept that he was driving. After all, the RK could nominate somebody else who was definitely not driving and by hc's contention that would be that. The nominee (who may know nothing about the incident) would then be left to sort out the matter about which he has no knowledge. This is scarcely any better (as far as the creditor is concerned) to the previous arrangements where only the driver could be chased for the charges and the RK could refute any liability simply by saying he was not driving and nominating "A.N.Other".
The regulations to which a link has been provided give details of how creditors (i.e. the parking authority) can pursue Registered Keepers for unpaid parking charges. It says they can do so if:
(a) The creditor [the parking autority] has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
I believe that faced with the situation I described above the Local Authority would take the view that they had not been provided with sufficient details of the driver and the charges would revert to the RK. Otherwise all any RK has to do when in this situation is to nominate "D.Duck, c/o Disneyland" as the driver at the time the parking charges were levied.
NJ - I understand that if the RK provides obviously fictitious details the penalty can revert (your para. b)) but what if the RK does provide correct details (as aka... says he/she has done) & the person who was driving then ignores things or disputes that they were driving?
If they ignore it then presumably the Council can start Court action against them but if they dispute driving can the penalty then go back to the RK? From what you quote it looks as if it can because the Council would argue that the RK hasn't provided details of the actual driver. How far does a company have to go to keep records which would prove to the satisfaction of the Council that a specific named person was driving a vehicle at a particular time? It seems a bureaucratic nightmare to me!
If they ignore it then presumably the Council can start Court action against them but if they dispute driving can the penalty then go back to the RK? From what you quote it looks as if it can because the Council would argue that the RK hasn't provided details of the actual driver. How far does a company have to go to keep records which would prove to the satisfaction of the Council that a specific named person was driving a vehicle at a particular time? It seems a bureaucratic nightmare to me!
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Midweek Punt - Wed 16 April 2024
Other Sports15 mins ago
Editor's Blog23 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.