A Disabled Charity And A PPC

bromsgrovebarry

esmerobbo wrote: »

"an application to the court to compel the registered keeper to provide the driver's details where necessary"

I would love to know how they do that??

I suppose they mean a Norwich Pharmacal Order, good luck to them!

trisontana

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

I suppose they mean a Norwich Pharmacal Order, good luck to them!

Doesn't that cost lots of money. Is it worth it for a fifty quid parking charge?

Edit,

This from the HJ (Lucy BC) website:-
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.

robredz

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

If they go down the Norwich Pharmacal route, a tame judge may bite , but the likelihood of a judge considering it to be a proportionate action against an RK, to disclose the drivers name for such a low value of claim is doubtful. Now if there ware an ambulance chaser involved looking to ground a goldmine for a whiplash claim........................

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

Doesn't that cost lots of money. Is it worth it for a fifty quid parking charge?

Edit,

This from the HJ (Lucy BC) website:-
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.

Agreed and whilst a NPO could, theoretically, be applied for the consequence would almost certainly see a small claims case being taken out of the fast track and into full county court hearings (there would have to be more than one) with all of the ensuing costs and drain on court time.

I also suspect that an application for such an Order would be viewed as being completely disproportionate to the sum claimed when what the court would be being asked to do is to make up for a deficiency in the claimant's evidence. Given that the PPC would also have to demonstrate that all other routes have been explored (and failed to yield the necessary) the evidence they did have is going to be examined in some detail and questions asked as to exactly what steps they took - at all stages - to obtain evidence of the driver's identity.

However, to date PPC's have generally relied upon cajoling [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] the driver's detail out of owners when had they used staff or better cameras, for example, (all at extra cost to them) they could have obtained it themselves or, at least, could demonstrate that they had taken steps to do so, then a court may look more favourably on such an application. As things stabnd this is so much hot air in my opinion.

Besides all else, any PPC venturing down this route is not going endear itself.

I note that the once oft-repeated and discredited case of Watteau has again reared its ugly and somewhat lonely (in terms of the weight given to its otherwise unique judgment) legal head.

This all smacks of the snapping of the last straws grasped by a business model that has run its course.

robredz

I would tend to agree with HO87, that a court would most likely spank a PPC going down the NPO route as it is out of all proportion to the value of any claim. Also
bear in mind that a PPC is after pulling in revenue rather than spending money, on a speculative foray that could cost them dear, i.e. they will avoid court usually.

I wonder if one particular PPC is relying on Watteau, to bind "anyone with a proprietary interest in the vehicle" to the extent of a finance company on a HP motor?

bromsgrovebarry

I have no doubt that they will not use the NPO route but may use the threat of using one [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]. I am sure that the NPO was this legal device they spout on about on their website. It will be interesting to see how this 'ethical' concern operates.

Fergie76

Did anybody ever report Mobilise to the Charity Commission?

Surely, they are in breach of the fundamental principle of a Charity:

Being a charity is not the same as being an organisation that does ‘good things’. Charity has an outward, inclusive nature: it is not inward-looking, for private benefit. Only organisations with aims ('purposes') that are charitable for public benefit are accorded the charity label.

By being in bed with a PPC for benefit must surely be at odds, of for 'public benefit'. Especially, when they make money by the public being persecuted.

Also, looking at Mobilise on the Charity Commission website (Link) they have some high-powered Presidents; MPs and such like.

Also, they are losing more money than, they are bringing in each year and spend 51% of their income on wages. Link

bromsgrovebarry

Whatever they are paying Helen Dolphin, it is too much.

taffy056

Hello Mobilise PPC, here is yet another case of a disabled driver being harassed by a ppc, what is your advice on this most unwelcome Christmas gift?

shaedee wrote: »

I dont know whether you have received these the latest Excel PCN notice that I have received. Sent to me a month after the 'alleged offence', I have had no ticket prior to prove this, I have a disabled parking badge. Iceland in Eastwood dont want to know anything about their disabled customers getting harrassed by these people who monitor their car park!

Unfrotunately I have already emailed them before I stumbled onto your site and joined! Can you give me advice and do you think I will be liable for saying this with my address at the top:

I would like proof of your video footage, as it looks like you have caught my car with the lights on, and therefore, the car was actually being driven and not parked (your dark photographic evidence supplied cannot possibly see anything displayed in this light) . Why wasnt a notice served on my front window of this alleged offence, which clearly is not shown on your photographic evidence? If this was the case, why has this letter been sent out a month after your alleged proof and in the Christmas post? ? If a notice was given, I would have gone straight into Iceland to show proof, alongside my iceland grocery reciepts. Plus, if you notice, the car would have come from the disabled parking bay and have a valid disabled parking badge prominently displayed on the front of the dash board. I enclose evidence of my badge for you to see this properly in the daylight.

I would like you revoke this accusation at once and with a full apology, because this is not the first time you have tried to charge me around Christmas time for something I have not done. This to me is more like a con trying to get money out of people weeks after allegations and without providing real proof of any offence.


HELP PLEASE : )

HO87

taffy056 wrote: »

Hello Mobilise PPC, here is yet another case of a disabled driver being harassed by a ppc, what is your advice on this most unwelcome Christmas gift?

"Pay the fine and get a reduced rate membership to Mobilise where we can advise you further", of course.