Combined Parking Solutions becomes the first private parking company to enforce a ticket via the courts where the registered keeper refuses to name the driver, the court accepts on the balance of proabilities the keeper was the person responsible.

What is so special about this ?

Some people have been incorrectly advised that if you refuse to name the driver then parking companies can not enforce the ticket via the courts.

This case involved a person who ignored our ticket, then after receiving our reminder letter sent us a response saying they were not the driver and thought the problem would go away.

We issued legal proceedings against them in the county court and even at that stage the defendant kept stating he was under no obligation to assist or tell us who was driving.

Following our legal argument to the court it was decided that he was in fact responsible for the ticket and him refusing to name the driver was (on the balance of probabilites) because there was no one else to name.

What was the opinion of the court ?

The court concluded that the defendant did have a duty to name the driver and assist in resolving the matter, by the defendant ignoring our request for information went against the overiding principle of justice that is setout in the CPR (Civil Procedure Rules).

But the court still could not prove he was the driver ?

This is correct, the judge was not there when the parking took place but as this is a civil matter then it works on the balance of probabilities (51%) and is not the same as a criminal case where we have to prove he was the driver beyond reasonable doubt.

The court took the view that if he was not the driver then a reasonable person would simply write to the company at the first opportunity and advise the person who was driving – a ‘reasonable person’ would not want the trouble of possible legal action and additional charges if they were not involved.

The fact he took the behaved in the way he did, refused to name the person who was driving meant (on the balance of probabilities) he was doing this because there was no other driver.

Internet forums are saying the judge got it wrong ?

If the judge did get it wrong then the defendant could have easily appealed, there is a cost for an appeal (as of writing £115) but this is recovered if the appeal stood up – No appeal was ever made.

I read this was a setup case ?

In each and every case when a parking company enforces a charge via the courts the internet forums either say (1) the judge got it wrong (2) it was a setup case (3) the defendant had a poor defence/case. Unfortunately some people out there will never accept that parking charges are 100% enforceable and the courts do it on a daily basis.

Combined Parking Solutions is the number 1 parking enforcement company in the UK, we lead the way in enforcing unpaid charges via the courts.

The internet forum members know this and will say or do anything to discredit our fully documented court wins, they may say lots but ultimately the courts make the decisions and consistently agree with Combined Parking Solutions.

Can I see the documents to prove this ?

Of course, these have all been used in open court and are not protected (we have of course removed the personal details of the defendant).

The letter from defendant when the ticket was not paid.
The court defence as submitted by the defendant.
The court order following the FULL hearing and the courts reasons for the decisionFor more information and details on how Combined Parking Solutions can resolve your parking issues then call now on 0871 288 4606 or you can email us..