Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Kharas1 on February 08, 2026, 02:06:08 pm
-
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.
-
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:
(https://i.ibb.co/sJ9cdNzT/Screenshot-2026-02-09-113051.png) (https://ibb.co/PzGJvP02)
(https://i.ibb.co/HphQdfPg/Screenshot-2026-02-09-113129.png) (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.
-
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?