Devere Parking Services counterclaim for costs

peter_the_piper

Have no fear, the experts (you will soon see who they are) are quite happy to advise on the defence by PM or e-mail for just the reason you are alluding to.

bcn99

Thanks for the replies guys

theytakeliberties

Congratulations, Winner.

I will try and private message you.

Alexis27

Just my opinion ( i am NOT legally qualified) but depending on the exact circumstances I believe it is very unwise to defend a claim on the basis that they can not prove who the driver particularly if the driver is probably the R/K.
This is because the PPC only have to establish on balance of probability not prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether we like it or not some district judges will side with the PPC in the following circumstances.

Someone made the point the other day - if you're insured on 2 vehicles, surely the balance of probabilities would mean you would have been driving both cars simultaneously :-)

Re. Devere - new poster above has asked me to post this link: http://www.britishparkingassociation.info/

Coupon-mad

theytakeliberties wrote: »

Congratulations, Winner.

I will try and private message you.

Try to private message who? Who is Winner? I don't understand your post.

And - more to the point - who are you?

bcn99 you can trust Alexis27 with a pm to help with your defence, but never trust a newbie pming to offer help in your case. Maybe theytakeliberties is the newbie who pm'd Alexis, I am confused!!

I like that link though, very very good.

real1314

Sirdan wrote: »

Just my opinion ( i am NOT legally qualified) but depending on the exact circumstances I believe it is very unwise to defend a claim on the basis that they can not prove who the driver particularly if the driver is probably the R/K.
This is because the PPC only have to establish on balance of probability not prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether we like it or not some district judges will side with the PPC in the following circumstances.
The vehicle is a private vehicle and the R/K is insured on the basis that they are the "main driver" -most insurance does stipulate this.
In the event that there is no evidence to the contrary the judge may well conclude that on balance of probability the main driver was indeed the driver when the event occurred.

In short if you want to defend on the unknown driver defence you need to be able to demonstrate that in probability it was not the main insured driver i.e. the registered Keeper.

IMHO contractual defences are a better strategy unless you can offer evidence as to why you could not possibly be the driver .

The problems with this sort of conclusion are at least twofold:-

1. The terminology of registered "keeper" does not support the contention that they are therefore the likely "driver" - using one term to imply the other is a non-sequitir

2. Even if the term "keeper" could be equated to "main driver", concluding any sort of balance of probability decision on this basis would be a flawed use of statistical probabilities.

Sirdan

real1314 wrote: »

The problems with this sort of conclusion are at least twofold:-

1. The terminology of registered "keeper" does not support the contention that they are therefore the likely "driver" - using one term to imply the other is a non-sequitir

2. Even if the term "keeper" could be equated to "main driver", concluding any sort of balance of probability decision on this basis would be a flawed use of statistical probabilities.

I know it,you know it, but that doesn't preclude a county court erroneously reaching this conclusion.

theytakeliberties

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I like that link though, very very good.

There is a guestbook there for Castlepoint and other motorists who have encountered the shadowy Devere Parking Services.

anne.stanyer

My daughter lives in Bournemouth and she has a parking permit from Dever parking services for the space where she lives. She recieved a notice that she has to pay £175 in 14 days. She could clearly see the permit from the flat door which was in her screeen, so they could not have missed it. Does she reply as they said they are going to the small claims court; or does she ignore?

Coupon-mad

anne.stanyer wrote: »

My daughter lives in Bournemouth and she has a parking permit from Devere parking services for the space where she lives. She recieved a notice that she has to pay £175 in 14 days. She could clearly see the permit from the flat door which was in her screeen, so they could not have missed it. Does she reply as they said they are going to the small claims court; or does she ignore?

What do you think? All PPCs 'say they are going to small claims'! :rotfl:

Sorry but we know ignoring fake PCNs works - they are a scam so why would you pay? Even when Devere try the occasional (very occasional) actual County Court case they lose or back out. They get their money for their scumbag rich-chav lifestyle by threatening people who pay up because they are sadly too ignorant to check up first and learn that fake PCNs are just a con. You have come here first so you have all the info you need to feel confident and inform your daughter.

Read some other threads if you only stumbled across this old one, there's so much info about private parking companies (PPCs) on this dedicated forum. Ignore their bogus 'tickets' and the scary letters. See the important top thread 'PPC letters' for preview pics of the letter-chains and go to the thread called 'welcome, please read before posting' for the must-see Watchdog paper aeroplane youtube link:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...play.php?f=163

Most of us here have ignored these fake PCNs, whether from a private residential car park, a station or a supermarket or McDonalds car parks. Basically any 'ticket' that calls itself a 'parking charge notice' is a fake; real PCNs are called 'penalty charge notices'. It's simple to tell the difference even though some of the fakes look legit and they may have a photo of your car on (big wow!) and are followed by scary letters, it doesn't make them any more enforceable than, say, a made-up £50 'charge' from me, for anyone reading this reply.

I ignored a fake PCN 3 years ago and would happily collect more just to cost the scammer PPCs some more money in postage with their pathetic threatogram letter-chain. I always use supermarket car parks and the driver of my car sometimes overstays (oh dear) but sadly the PPCs have never yet graced my windscreen with any more of their pointless bogroll 'tickets'.

In your daughters case there's no way Devere could win - she just needs to relax, laugh and ignore each well-known letter. Show her what you read here on the forum link I gave above, so that she has seen the Watchdog programme link and looked at the preview pics of the letters they will send.

If in the very unlikely event that she is one of the 0.0001% who get real Small Claims Court papers (not just threatograms) then she can start her own thread on the forum and defend the pathetic claim, see Devere off & claim costs as mentioned in the first post. But a real PPC case is as rare as hen's teeth so don't hold your breath.