In trying to prove their case, parking companies often cite the case of Elliott v Loake, 1982. They claim it as a precedent for showing the keeper is most likely the driver of the vehicle in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The wording is meant to scare you. Here is why you can ignore it.
Why airports are different
On normal private land, a parking company can pursue the keeper of the car. This comes from a law called POFA (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012). If the driver is not named, the keeper can be made to pay.
This rule does not apply on airport land.
So at an airport, the keeper does not have to name the driver. And if the keeper does not, the company has no legal way to pass the charge on to them.
What the letter may say
Some letters mention Elliott v Loake. They hint that the case lets them treat the keeper as the driver.
It does not.
What the case was really about
In Elliott v Loake, the court decided the man had been driving. But not because he owned the car.
There was a lot of other evidence. The court also decided he had lied. All of it together led to the decision.
This case had ample evidence that he was the driver. The lack of evidence of who the driver was was not enough.
What the company must prove
To win in court, the company has to show who was driving. It has to show this on the balance of probabilities. That means it is more likely than not.
They need real evidence that you, or another named person, were behind the wheel. Being the keeper is not enough.
Why they keep sending these letters
Because it works. Many people get scared and pay.
If a case went to court, they could not use Elliott v Loake this way. Most likely, they will not take it that far.
What you can do
- Do not name the driver.
- Do not pay because of a scary letter.
- Send one of our free templates instead.
If you were the driver and you say so, things change. Do not say anything untrue. You do not need to.
Sources
- Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 3 ("relevant land" excludes land subject to statutory control). Primary. Legislation.gov.uk
- Forum thread: operator cites Elliott v Loake after admitting POFA does not apply. Describes the case as criminal, with forensic and circumstantial evidence. Community. FTLA forum discussion
- Forum thread: witness statement noting the case was criminal and citing two 2016 county court cases (Stockport and Sheffield) where judges rejected the argument. Community. MoneySavingExpert forum discussion
- Forum thread quoting an IAS adjudicator who accepted the Elliott v Loake argument. Community. MoneySavingExpert forum discussion
- Forum thread: example of operator wording citing "1983 Crim LR 36". Community. MoneySavingExpert forum discussion