Private Parking Tickets discussion

blaster99999

Kite2010 wrote: »

Ask them which law are you breaking for withholding driver details

Or don't say nothing at all to them monkeys

This was the response i got from the jokers lol have a laugh at this load of old toss

Furthermore, as specified in the notices you have received, it clearly states on the back -
Section 3a. - Driver Liability: 'The driver is responsible for the charges issued against the vehicle. If "you" the registered keeper were not the driver at the time of the offence, then you must provide the drivers full name and contact details including a copy of your and their motor insurance policies to prove they had authority to use your vehicle at the time of the offence'.
Section 3b. also states - 'if you cannot provide the drivers details "you" the registered keeper will be held liable for the charges issued against the vehicle'.

If you were not the driver at the time of the contravention, please provide us with the relevant information and documentation as described above stating the offenders name and address in full (photocopies are sufficient). These documents must be sent to us by xx/xx/20xx, failure to do so will result in continued pursuance of yourself.

With reference to your comments regarding having no obligation to provide the drivers details, then please note that in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, failure or refusal to provide the requested details without valid cause will result in us obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal Order; whereby the court will order the registered keeper to disclose information leading to the identification of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.

Sirdan

worth a read ..sounds like a bluff re the Norwich Pharmacal Order..

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?266001-Norwich-Pharmacal-Co.-v-Customs-and-Excise-Commissioners-1974

Kite2010

IIRC Norwich Pharmacal Orders don't apply to county courts.

I disclose the driver has 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose & a mouth

blaster99999

Kite2010 wrote: »

IIRC Norwich Pharmacal Orders don't apply to county courts.

I disclose the driver has 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose & a mouth

i found this site and disscussion shortly after recieving the reply above, since then i have ignored and my friend who was driving as been warned that this is a generic scam, and forgot my mate is blind in one eye, so thats 1 eye, 2 ears , 1 nose and a mouth lol

trisontana

blaster99999 wrote: »

Furthermore, as specified in the notices you have received, it clearly states on the back -
Section 3a. - Driver Liability: 'The driver is responsible for the charges issued against the vehicle. If "you" the registered keeper were not the driver at the time of the offence, then you must provide the drivers full name and contact details including a copy of your and their motor insurance policies to prove they had authority to use your vehicle at the time of the offence'.
Section 3b. also states - 'if you cannot provide the drivers details "you" the registered keeper will be held liable for the charges issued against the vehicle'.

That looks as though that has been lifted straight from some official document. These PPCs really think they have some official status when in reality they are just a bunch of private citizens with no more authority than you or I to demand this sort of information. And, of course, no "offence" has occurred because no law has been broken.

peter_the_piper

blaster99999 wrote: »

my mate is blind in one eye, so thats 1 eye, 2 ears , 1 nose and a mouth lol

And he/she drives???:T:T

blaster99999

peter_the_piper wrote: »

And he/she drives???:T:T

might be reason they didnt see the bloody signs lol

anewman

blaster99999 wrote: »

"you must provide the drivers full name and contact details including a copy of your and their motor insurance policies to prove they had authority to use your vehicle at the time of the offence'."

Lol the old insurance one. I feel a photoshop fake insurance certificate coming on

kevin1957_2

I parked in a private car park and obtained my ticket at a cost of £1.40.I returned to my vehicle well within my time limit.I found I had been fined because my ticket had flipped over so the operative could not read the time and date.The charge was £90.It has since gone up to £267,because it happened almost 2 years ago.I contacted the firm on the same day the incident occured stating the above facts but they said I still had to pay.There is no signage in the car park stating that even if you buy a ticket and it can't be read then you are still eligable for a fine.I have recieved a final demand with further costs to be added and court proceedings.I still have the original ticket.Anybody any ideas.Regards Kev.

peter_the_piper

Yep, continue to ignore. The next letter will probably be "As a measure of good faith we'll accept £100.00" or something similar then they give up.