parking ticket from excel parking services limited

Oopsadaisy

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If the PPC can't identify the driver, they are stuffed.

So ignoring works, whereas entering into any correspondence with them only encourages them [as well as making it easier for them].

There's a danger that people start to believe that writing to them is sensible...it never has been the advice of any credible source on here to write to them [and I can't see that changing anytime soon].

Keep it simple.......ignore, ignore, ignore some more.

Half_way

Although my advice to write, and offer payment for the pay and display fee is only valid if and only if youve parked somewhere and for whatever reason failed to pay the standard rate.
If its a free car park, or youve paid for your parking, or theyve ticketed you for some other reason (ie your tyre was touching a white line ) then you should ignore all correspondance ( unless your up for a fight )

ManxRed

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If the PPC can't identify the driver, they are stuffed.

So ignoring works, whereas entering into any correspondence with them only encourages them [as well as making it easier for them].

There's a danger that people start to believe that writing to them is sensible...it never has been the advice of any credible source on here to write to them [and I can't see that changing anytime soon].

Keep it simple.......ignore, ignore, ignore some more.

Incorrect. They only have to convince a judge that on the balance of probabilities the person who they have claimed against is the driver.

See CPS v Thomas.

Sorry, but you need to understand that there are several options here, and just because someone favours a different option to you, does not make them 'wrong'.

Your second 'fact' is incorrect too. There are plenty of examples on here and in other forums where it is suggested to write to the PPC. For example, in setting up a potential claim for harassment, or where there is a lease car involved. I know that doesn't apply here, but it does make your statement incorrect.

Oopsadaisy

The agreed advice on here for the last 40,000+ posts wrt PPC is...... ignore, ignore some more.

ManxRed

No it isn't.

in.debt_2

At the risk of interrupting your argument, we received one of these parking charges at work today - addressed to the company, a picture of one of the pool cars and the usual spiel.

Are we safe to ignore this? I could probably find out who was driving it at the time, but really, it's hassle I don't want or need - and if I don't know who was driving it, Excel Parking have no chance of knowing.

ManxRed

In YOUR circumstances, you can ignore it completely!

Even if you did know who was driving you are under no legal obligation to tell Excel anyway.

WageSlave1_2

in.debt wrote: »

At the risk of interrupting your argument, we received one of these parking charges at work today - addressed to the company, a picture of one of the pool cars and the usual spiel.

Are we safe to ignore this? I could probably find out who was driving it at the time, but really, it's hassle I don't want or need - and if I don't know who was driving it, Excel Parking have no chance of knowing.

Your post is a good illustration of why the driver of a company car should not just ignore a PPC ticket he finds stuck to the windscreen or tucked under the wiper blade. Some less clued up employers might actually have paid the spurious demand and then tryed to dock it from the employee's pay.

As you are reasonably clued up it is probably pretty safe to ignore but given that the car is registered to a company you may well be seen as a soft touch and thus be in line for some threats of being taken to court to force you to disgorge the driver's identity. You might see terms like "CPR 31.15" and Norwich Pharmacal Order bandied about.

Rather than just ignore it you might want to reply along these lines.

"Thank you for your recent communication.

As you will know we are under no legal obligation to inform you of the identity of the vehicle's driver on the day in question. We will not do so and nor will we supply any documents or records unless and until a court order is obtained. You will, of course, have to pay our legal and other costs, including the costs of complying with any order made, if you should choose to go down this route.

In the meantime perhaps you could let us know why you believe you have the necessary locus standii to pursue a demand for payment against anyone in light of the recent VCS v HMRC decision in the Upper Tax Tribunal"

Stephen_Leak

Unfortunately, if they do apply for and are granted a Norwich Pharmacal Order, the unsuccessful defendent has to pay the cost of the order. It's evidently only £42.50 though. See VCS vs. Susan Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012.

PS. VCS is a trading name or subsidiary or whatever of Excel.

WageSlave1_2

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

Unfortunately, if they do apply for and are granted a Norwich Pharmacal Order, the unsuccessful defendent has to pay the cost of the order. It's evidently only £42.50 though. See VCS vs. Susan Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012.

PS. VCS is a trading name or subsidiary or whatever of Excel.

Not so. The 'baseline', as it were, is that the applicant for a NPO should pay the respondent's costs. But the court does have the ability to make some other order. That the respondent's costs should be paid is the usual order where the respondent is an innocent third party from whom disclosure is sought. He is perfectly entitled to put the applicant to the time and trouble of going to court to get an order. He can even oppose it and still hope to get his costs paid if his arguments are sensible ones.

If I wanted your ISP to provide me with details of every internet site you'd been visiting the ISP might well contest the making of the order on grounds that their customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy or that the disclosure is disproportionate with regard to the nature and quantum of any claim I might have against you, their customer.

Obviously the less that the respondent is truly an innocent third party and the more that he struggles against the making of the disclosure order the less likely it is that he can expect to be paid his costs (and indeed the more likely it is that he might be ordered to pay the applicant's costs).

Here I think an employer could do more than just turn up and say "we are happy to comply with whatever order the court may make". They might, for instance, point out :-

- the problems that the applicants would have in pursuing a claim against their employee in terms of unenforceable penalties, lack of a proprietory interest/occupation rights in the land, etc, etc

- that no one has been killed or injured and that there is no damage to any property and that the applicant just wishes to have the employee's name and address so that they may send dunning letters with a view to making a profit for themselves;

- that the court, being a public body, will want to have proper regard for the employee's right to privacy under the Human Rights Act, etc

These arguments might be made, and a solicitor or barrister might be hired to make them, without losing the respondent's prima facie entitlement to costs.