Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

Sirdan

notts_phil wrote: »

that is very true!

Is it possible for the claimant to withdraw at the eleventh hour and not incur any additional costs or other sanction ?
If so it could all be bluff..although presumably they have had to pay up front for the hearing to be listed on a non-refundable basis.
Can't quite work out their "plan" ...as discussed an NPO is meaningless against a respondent who simply does not have the information requested AND even if he does have the info safely filed in his memory no one can prove that nor can they compel him to disclose it if he chooses to ....er......forget....;)

Just can not see what VCS hope to gain by this action.?
Unless it IS a set up where the OP will disclose on threat of NPO or actual grant of NPO, no doubt VCS would love to be able to say they DO get NPOs and they do work ...

I personally think the lack of detail given,the refusal to engage with pepipoo and the criticism levelled at this forum spell SET UP..!

peter_the_piper

Post by Normandros on pepipoo is concerning if right.

""I'm left wondering who the audience is for this and my gut instinct is that this is the first round in a long "persuasion." This kahlenb may be genuine, maybe a patsy, maybe an employee or friend of VCS who's doing them a favour. Who knows. The point is kahlenB has 3 invoices, so the game may be to discredit kahlenb (you don't know 3 times!!) or show a pattern of behaviour (similar to that parking "success" in Scotland a while back). The point is that it doesn't matter if VCS wins or loses. They win, they get to scare people with a story; they lose, then they can lobby for "more regulation" as they've now tried all remedies. The upshot is that I think they are trying to get a process going that similar to an S172 but for parking, so the worse they do here, the better it is for their long game.""

Coblcris

A wise post.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Post by Normandros on pepipoo is concerning if right.

""I'm left wondering who the audience is for this and my gut instinct is that this is the first round in a long "persuasion." This kahlenb may be genuine, maybe a patsy, maybe an employee or friend of VCS who's doing them a favour. Who knows. The point is kahlenB has 3 invoices, so the game may be to discredit kahlenb (you don't know 3 times!!) or show a pattern of behaviour (similar to that parking "success" in Scotland a while back). The point is that it doesn't matter if VCS wins or loses. They win, they get to scare people with a story; they lose, then they can lobby for "more regulation" as they've now tried all remedies. The upshot is that I think they are trying to get a process going that similar to an S172 but for parking, so the worse they do here, the better it is for their long game.""

Surely the proposed Schedule 4 is somewhat akin to S172 in as much that if the driver remains unknown then the keeper can be claimed against.
This will still leave the PPC floundering in County Court re the contractual hurdles that they continually fall over.
Clearly the legislators do not believe that Private Companies should be given statutory authority or they would have written Schedule 4 very differently !
Clearly any such legislation would be a slippery slope ..Private Companies with statutory authority to issue arbitary penalties...whatever next Private Police Services etc etc ???

HO87

Indeed.

Exactly the argument I've been trying to advance from the outset of the Freedom Bill discussion. PPC World wants private parking regulation a la Traffic Management Act (and the shift to owner liability reveals this as their intent) because it would be based on an office-bound (and thus cheap) process and, crucially, would free them of the cockpit that is the County Court.

The critical part of the case I have been making is that the argument has been cleverly skewed by the PPC lobby to give the impression that the offer of an independent adjudicator (again, a la TMA) is a concession. It isn't and never was a concession. This is exactly what they want because such an adjudicator would effectively relieve them of trips to the small claims court. Costs, generally, would be vastly reduced from those incurred in going to court because they would be based on a precept (£1 per invoice, for example), a smaller proportion of recipients would query them and it would be a simple paper-feed.

There is an existing independent tribunal - the small claims court.

peter_the_piper

HO87 wrote: »

There is an existing independent tribunal - the small claims court.

Whilst they are at it they could make ccj's binding, public pay up (usually) companies don't (usually).

Coblcris

The wording in the Act that concerns me most is the use of "creditor" and "debtor".
On its face this is flying in face of contract and commercial law.

notts_phil

I wonder if anyone is going to turn up to this hearing from these boards?

I was going to go today but got eon coming

notts_phil

i wonder if the poster will update us

photome

notts_phil wrote: »

i wonder if the poster will update us

Well he hasnt posted anything since the date of the original post on the 29th june.

Is he for real?