Private Parking Company demanding driver information by threatening the ‘Norwich Phar

Pacemaker1000_2

Hi all

I received a PPN but, as I was not the driver I sent the ‘Performa’ from this forum back stating such and that ‘I am also under no obligation to disclose who was driving the car so please do not contact me again with regards this’.

I have now received this letter:
[FONT=&quot]
’Thank you for your letter concerning the above Parking contravention. Although you state that you were not the driver, as Registered Keeper you have the necessary information about the identity and contact details of the driver to enable us to recover the amount due from that driver. We therefore require you to provide us with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the date and at the time when the vehicle was parked in the above-named car park, within the next seven days. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
If you were not the driver at the relevant time, and you do not provide us with the requested details of the name and address of the driver at the relevant time (or if you give false or incomplete information), we will issue court proceedings against you seeking an order compelling you to disclose the requested information. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
It is quite widely (but wrongly) believed that Registered Keepers cannot be compelled to disclose information of this nature if a car park is operated on private land. The relevant court order is called a Norwich Pharmacal Order, after the name of the case in which its availability was confirmed by the House of Lords. We will seek such an order against you if you do not furnish us with the true details of the driver at the relevant time, unless there are reasonable grounds for your failure to do so. If you believe there are such reasonable grounds, you must tell us what those grounds are. If it becomes necessary to go to court, further costs will be incurred.’

[/FONT]

My thoughts are that this is a bullying letter playing with words in a way intended to intimidate.
I do not see what has changed from my initial response. They still do not have any authority to request information from me and from what they are saying it will take a court order to make this request legal.
From what I have read on the ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’ this would not be a cheap option for them, plus they would have to prove it was in ‘the publics’ interest’ in order to have it granted. I fail to see how this cost could be passed on to me as at the moment I am entitled to my stance and as amusingly summed up in their own finale statement.’[FONT=&quot]If it becomes necessary to go to court, further costs will be incurred.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’ But it quite rightly fails to say this would by me!

[/FONT]

Also, as far as they know I could still have been the driver plus, despite their claim, I could not say for definite if I wasn’t who was driving at a specific time as there is more than one person entitled to drive it legally. They would still have to prove who was driving and send their PCN to them to contest.

I am tempted to fire such a response to them but think it probably best to ignore it and any further letters until they inevitably give up harassing me. In retrospect perhaps I should not have responded at all and let them take me to court as the driver as I can prove I wasn’t.

Thoughts?

taffy056

Thoughts ?

IGNORE of course

Kite2010

Ignore, they won't get a NPO.

Any reasonable judge would throw the case out

Sirdan

It's a ............................................................................ BLUFF !

IGNORE these pillocks.

Fergie76

I'm not legal expert what-so-ever, so don't sue me, if you follow this advice and it goes pear shaped...........:rotfl:

But call their bluff, with a piece of paper with the Reference number they have assigned to you and in big bold letters:

SEE YOU IN COURT!!!

Or just ignore.

Pacemaker1000_2

wow. quick replies thanks

just read this another post on the SAME company (should have used the search sorry ):

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=41500974#post41500974

could i suggest the official advice is updated as i too now believe it to be outdated

hope me posting the threatening letter and its following advice will help others in the future
i am off to power up my shredder LOL

ripped_off_driver

Norwich Pharmacal not available in Small Claims, so a non starter. There are many other reasons why it is a total no go, but PPCs do like to lie. It is after all what the whole industry is built on.

Fergie76

To post a link, just leave off the http:// and someone will sort it for you.

Pacemaker1000_2

Seriously though how could I be liable for the costs of ‘them’ applying for a court order when I have done nothing wrong by not supplying them with what they request?
Surely even if they were successful the worst that could happen is I would have to supply a list of possible drivers?

System

The main requirement for one of those orders is

"The claimant must have a real and unsatisfied claim against the unknown wrongdoer"

My bold. Very difficult when you can't prove contract to start with.

Fergie76

Pacemaker1000 wrote: »

wow. quick replies thanks

just read this another post on the SAME company (should have used the search sorry ):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/41500974#Comment_41500974

could i suggest the official advice is updated as i too now believe it to be outdated

hope me posting the threatening letter and its following advice will help others in the future
i am off to power up my shredder LOL

Sorted.......