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

Sirdan

!!!!!! wrote: »

An NPO can not be heard and actioned in a small claims court. I'm not even sure that it can be heard by a county court judge.

Correct but that does not mean that it can not be applied to proceedings in a county court does it ?

What is confusing is that references to NPO usually make reference to Rule 31 (particularly 31.22) which def does not apply to small claims.

Any solicitors on board ??

I suppose it is a moot point because a PPC is not going to pay the costs associated with obtaining an NPO for a claim that is only £100 or less.

ripped_off_driver

Sirdan wrote: »

Er, I beg to differ ACS had NPO and their claims were £495 against each individual named ..surely that is small claims isn't it ? Or are IP rights dealt with outside of Small Claims regardless of the amount claimed ?

The ACS-Law non-cases and associated NPOs were heard in the Patents Court, which has completely different rules. NPOs are not available in Small Claims Court as Part 31 of the CPR - Discovery and Inspection - does not apply to SC cases.

Pacemaker1000_2

surely though regardless of 'if' they can raise an NPO what can they ask you to provide?
you cannot state without doubt WHO was driving and drop an innocent person in it! even if you have a fair idea who it was
they are asking you to be judge and jury over who committed what they are perceiving to be a misdemeanor
like i said in my pretend reply, you tell me who you have identified as the driver before i tell you their details!

peter_the_piper

Another question would be "was the person parking it the same as the one who drove off".

Sirdan

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

The ACS-Law non-cases and associated NPOs were heard in the Patents Court, which has completely different rules. NPOs are not available in Small Claims Court as Part 31 of the CPR - Discovery and Inspection - does not apply to SC cases.

I think that is incorrect an NPO is a separate mechanism outside of rule 31 "..In Mitsui the court dismissed the application for a Norwich Pharmacal order on a number of grounds. One of these was because the information required could be obtained by another method, namely Rule 31.16.
"

If an NPO can be denied because rule 31.16 applies if follows (or so it seems) that an order could be granted where rule 31.16 was not available to the claimant e.g. on the Small Claims track.

and although we believe an NPO could be ruled disproportionate , maybe that is also not neccessariliy the case

" in Carlton Film Distributors Ltd v UCI Plc {[2003] EWHC 616 (Ch)} a simple breach of contract was held to be sufficient to justify the granting of a Norwich Pharmacal order."

Not that it's ever gonna happen ..it's just PPC bully boy empty threats as usual ..there really ought to be someone (anyone please God) who can put a stop to what is essentially demanding money with menaces.

Sirdan

Pacemaker1000 wrote: »

surely though regardless of 'if' they can raise an NPO what can they ask you to provide?
you cannot state without doubt WHO was driving and drop an innocent person in it! even if you have a fair idea who it was
they are asking you to be judge and jury over who committed what they are perceiving to be a misdemeanor
like i said in my pretend reply, you tell me who you have identified as the driver before i tell you their details!

What if you did name some one at random ?? Do you have to produce some "evidence" to support your disclosure.
If not what happens when the PPC claim against this innocent and they defend it by stating they were not the driver they believe you were !!!
Is this stalemate ..what would a court make of that ..if you both have no evidence ..i.e. I was home alone at the time ..I have no proof ..no witnesses ..etc ??
Just a thought ....

vikingaero

I think Performa have recruited Andrew "Tommy Tanker" Crossley to be their new legal beagle! Crossley screwed up so badly in the ACSLaw cases that he's now taking on parking tickets.

peter_the_piper

He'll fit in well with the rest of the bunch then.

HO87

I for one would like to know which PPC has actually had the temerity to threaten a NPO. There is a relative newcomer to the PPC scene who has made a degree of noise about NPO's. Either way if a PPC made an application they would be liable for the costs in the first instance and the case would default out of the fast track into the county court. As ACS:Law found to their cost at that point the whole basis of their case came in for scrutiny. Their reliance on IP address evidence only was shown up together with their lack of relationship to the copyright holder. Any PPC venturing down this route is going to come in for the same. Besides anything else how many can clearly demonstrate their legal relationship to the landowner or will be allowed to do so? IMHO this is PPC bluster. Please let us know which company it is though - although I'd understand any reluctance.

esmerobbo

http://www.ngpltd.com/homepage.html

Here at New Generation Parking Management ltd we pride ourselves in being fair and within current legislation. We employ fully licensed SIA operatives and we are a approved operators of the British Parking association.

However, there are individuals in the Parking Managment Industry that are not interested the rules laid out by the governing bodies that regulate us, and will continue to take money ILLEGALLY from members of the public unless something is done.

In this section we will name and shame these rule breakers in an effort to improve the perception of Car Parking management companies.

1 New Generation Parking Management Ltd.

2 All the others!