Honest John - Telegraph paper

**unless ordered to so so by the court the keeper does not have to disclose who was driving.


I'm very intrigued by the above comment taken from LucyBC's post on the HJ forum (the bold emphasis is mine & I presume should read 'unless ordered to do so by the court' ).
I question under what practical circumstances & stage in legal proceedings exactly can a small claims court judge order a RK to disclose who was driving their vehicle in a PPC claim?

(I believe there is actually a legal precedent for a civil court to do this, but only in extemely serious cases involving death or serious injury etc).

The statement is in my humble opinion misleading & incorrect.
The small claims court is not there to act as a PPC evidence gathering tool.

Just got this message from someone who followed legal advice from someone, now that legal advice follows along the same lines as Honest John, now this is the reason not to follow Honest John's advice.

Posted with permission of the person who sent me a PM

===

Hi Taffy056,

Hope you dont mind me contacting you out of the blue.
I parked in a disabled bay of which i didnt think was in use anymore due to how poorly the markings were on the road in a retail park.
I received a Parking Charge Notice on my windscreen. I found the MSE website and ignored as advised.
Shortly afterwards I received a letter in the post from UKCPS saying that my charge had now gone from £60 to £100 and if not paid they may start court proceedings.
For the sake of it I decided to take legal advice who advised me to write a letter of reply stating that I did not think it was a disabled bay anymore and that due to the lack of signage near where i parked i could not have entered into any form of contract. They advised to offer a 'full and final' settlement of £10 to cover administration costs. This i did using a template letter from the website.
I received an email from UKCPS saying that as I had offered £10 i had accepted i had entered a contract and accepted that i parked in a disabled parking bay.
they have however offered to reduce the fee back to £60 for 5 days only and that i can spread the cost out over a few weeks as i have recently become unemployed.
i know you must get quite a few messages like mine but if you could please offer me your opinion as to what you think i should do i would be extremely grateful.
my main concern is that if i ignore completely from now on and get taken to court the judge will take a dim view of my case as UKCPS have reverted back to the lower amount.
Do UKCPS do court and what do judges think when defendants say the blue badge scheme does not apply to private carparks?

Thanks.

Taffy056 post is a perfect example of why you should never offer anything - it's an opportunity for the PPC to see it as an immediate acceptance of terms and condition and start the paper trail again - whilst also having £10 of your cash!

**unless ordered to so so by the court the keeper does not have to disclose who was driving.


I'm very intrigued by the above comment taken from LucyBC's post on the HJ forum (the bold emphasis is mine & I presume should read 'unless ordered to do so by the court' ).
I question under what practical circumstances & stage in legal proceedings exactly can a small claims court judge order a RK to disclose who was driving their vehicle in a PPC claim?

(I believe there is actually a legal precedent for a civil court to do this, but only in extemely serious cases involving death or serious injury etc).

The statement is in my humble opinion misleading & incorrect.
The small claims court is not there to act as a PPC evidence gathering tool.

It's an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order.

As Lucy said in the thread...:
"I have seen a number of cases where private parking companies are threatening (in letters at least) to apply to the courts for a "Norwich Pharmacal Order" which - if granted - would provide a court order to compel the keeper to reveal who was driving.

"A Norwich Pharmacal Order would normally require the applicant to show that revealing the information was in the public interest.

"Furthermore the substantial costs of a Norwich Pharmacal Order must be paid by the applicant (ie the parking company) and while they are recoverable if granted the application for costs is subject to a further hearing.

"So any mention of a Norwich Pharmacal in a parking case is likely to be another empty threat from the parking company's representatives."

So what's your problem with that?

I don't rant, I just deal in facts, preferably gained from personal experience.
FACT. If you totally ignore PPC Correspondence the chances of it going any further are very small.
FACT. If you make a small part payment you are admitting liability, and armed with this admission, a PPC would seriously consider the court route in preference to someone (who could possibly be legal expert) who totally ignores all letters.