When do "warning letters" become harrassment?

Vomityspice

The authority is Majrowski V Guys Hospital.

See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060712/majro-1.htm#1

The important point is 'vicarious liability', the employer is responsible for the acts of it's employees.

Delightful_Diane

I have a ticket from these bullies. It isn't and never was my car. They say all i need to do is prove it which i can but on principle don't want to! Have had several threatening letters and i have phoned them at least 3 times and sent 2 notes. They now say they are taking me to court. What should i do? This is their fault and they should check their facts not me prove my innocence.

peter_the_piper

Delightful_Diane wrote: »

I have a ticket from these bullies. It isn't and never was my car. They say all i need to do is prove it which i can but on principle don't want to! Have had several threatening letters and i have phoned them at least 3 times and sent 2 notes. They now say they are taking me to court. What should i do? This is their fault and they should check their facts not me prove my innocence.

Its down to them to prove you guilty (which they can't do) not you to prove you are innocent. Just ignore them. You'll get a few threatening letters, some fictitious solicitors ones and then they give up. The letter usually says they MAY take you to court, along with other IF's and MAYBE's. If they send any other bits of paper, by all means come back, start a new thread and we'll all help.

Coblcris

Guilty ? ? ? ?

cajef

Delightful_Diane wrote: »

It isn't and never was my car. They say all i need to do is prove it which i can. They now say they are taking me to court.

In which case tell them to carry on and you are going to claim costs, if you can prove it they have not got a leg to stand on and it would be laughed out of court.

muckybutt

I found http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_factsheets/harassment_of_people_in_debt_by_creditors.php this thread useful reading some time ago, I also posted it on pepipoo yesterday when I came across it again

trisontana

PPCs are well known for blurring the line between criminal law and civil law. Thus they will talk about "parking illegally" on private land and (in the case of PCN-Uk) use such terms as "warrants" and "bailiffs".

peter_the_piper

muckybutt wrote: »

I found http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_factsheets/harassment_of_people_in_debt_by_creditors.php this thread useful reading some time ago, I also posted it on pepipoo yesterday when I came across it again

Its now in the stickies.

trisontana

This is the sort of pseudo-legal gobbledegook that some parking companies use to try and scare people into paying:-

Refusing To Pay/Assist

Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets, some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge

A £60 parking charge is a very minor issue and when cases are presented to a court the claimant has to prove the case on the balance of probabilities (ie 51%) - A court could see defendants being obstructive as having something to hide .. If a person receives a ticket and they believe it to be incorrect a reasonable person would state the reasons why at the first possible opportunity ... If a case progresses to court after an appeal has been heard and rejected then the court will decide but the court will see all parties have attempted to resolve issues fairly and amicably and resorted to legal action as a last resort. (Under Civil Procedure Rules parties are specifically instructed to only use the court system as a last resort).

If a case goes to court and a defendant has not appealed, not responded to letters or sent obstructive defences the court could draw the conclusion that a person has something to hide for going to extraordinary lengths to avoid a minor parking charge.

Under section 143 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - The a keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle and to ensure they are insured, if a keeper allows a vehicle to be driven without insurance they are guilty of a criminal offence - By stating many people have access to a vehicle and as a result the defendant can not state who had it any one given date/time then they are confirming they did not know who was driving and therefore cannot be certain the vehicle was insured.

The exact wording is :
Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

On the balance of probabilities it is very unusual for a person just to leave their car keys for anyone to drive it and therefore not know who is driving it, we are yet to have a case where a judge has considered this to be 'normal' (with possible exception of a vehicle which has an ANY DRIVER clause on the insurance certificate/schedule).

This is a clear instance of the parking company seeming to deliberately confuse criminal law and civil law and so frighten the motorist.

If, in the very unlikely event the case ever gets to court the judge will not be interested about insurance. That's a criminal offence not a civil one, and nothing to do with that court. All the judge has has to rule on is whether the parking charge is fair or not. End of story.

The above comes from the Combined Parking Solutions website

HO87

fergies_army wrote: »

Protection from harassment act 97 ........

- A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another AND which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

PERSON under the act does not realate to companies or corporate bodies under this legislation.

This is how the legislation is worded but has now been clarified by case law on the specific issue of whether a body corporate can pursue a course of conduct. The deciding case is Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 which makes it very clear that a company can pursue a course of conduct amounting to harassment.

You can read the judgement here and whilst it is a little long-winded for those unused to reading judgements it is a pleasure to see the Appeal Court looking after the underdog for once.