Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

Sirdan

esmerobbo wrote: »

So their going for a breach of contract against the RK who they admit they know wasn't there? Should be an interesting argument! If of course VCS turn up! Once the OP wins or VCS don't turn up I hope they go after costs!

Have they officially admitted such though ? Or was that just some ill advised chat on the phone.
If they have admitted in writing that the OP is not the driver on probability (i.e. he can prove he was somewhere else) then the claim should be struck out before it even starts and the OP should be seeking damages on top of costs for a vexatious claim ..in my opinion.

robredz

esmerobbo wrote: »

So their going for a breach of contract against the RK who they admit they know wasn't there? Should be an interesting argument! If of course VCS turn up! Once the OP wins or VCS don't turn up I hope they go after costs!

Very dangerous legal grounds to try to bind an RK a third party into a contract that under UCTA, and this may apply as the PPC cannot say with certainty that all parties are business people and aware of the implications of contract law,. This would be VERY BAD INDEED if the PPC was to win, as for example, a TWOCer nicks your motor and leaves it miles away in a carpark run by a PPC, police fail to find motor, RK gets invoice and recovers car. PPC sue RK who ignores, PPC do court based on fact that aTWOCer leaving stolen motor binds RK into contract, as per their signage purporting to bind the world and his dog, cat etc into their parking "contract" therefore is liable to pay illegal penalty invoices.:mad:

notts_phil

Sirdan wrote: »

Have they officially admitted such though ? Or was that just some ill advised chat on the phone.
If they have admitted in writing that the OP is not the driver on probability (i.e. he can prove he was somewhere else) then the claim should be struck out before it even starts and the OP should be seeking damages on top of costs for a vexatious claim ..in my opinion.

What from I am led to believe it was in recorded phone call

Coblcris

I am curious to know exactly what happened at the NPO hearing and what its exact conclusion was.
However I fully comprehend that this should not be discussed in an open forum.

notts_phil

Coblcris wrote: »

I am curious to know exactly what happened at the NPO hearing and what its exact conclusion was.
However I fully comprehend that this should not be discussed in an open forum.

Vcs didn't turn up
Case struck out as the relevent section of cpr didn't apply to small claims track.
Vcs want to reinstate as they didn't know about hearing

In a nut shell

Coblcris

The dog ate my homework.

Sirdan

Vcs want to reinstate as they didn't know about hearing

Considering it was they who instigated this attempt at an NPO why don't I believe them ???
I hope the Court will take the same view and tell them to get stuffed !!

robredz

Sirdan wrote: »

Considering it was they who instigated this attempt at an NPO why don't I believe them ???
I hope the Court will take the same view and tell them to get stuffed !!

I would have thought that if VCS tried to get reinstatement, the court would refuse as the claim is vexatious, and a NPO is not proportional to the level of the claim

Sirdan

robredz wrote: »

I would have thought that if VCS tried to get reinstatement, the court would refuse as the claim is vexatious, and a NPO is not proportional to the level of the claim

I think VCS are trying to have it both ways :-

They want an NPO against the keeper in relation to a claim against that same person,the keeper.

Muddled thinking indeed.

An NPO must be against a person they believe to be third party to the "wrong doing" not the actual wrong doer.

That being the case they are admitting the keeper was probably not the driver ??

Therefore it follows that their claim against the keeper should be struck out as you can only claim against the driver.

(Correct me if my logic is flawed)

It strikes me that what they were trying to do was to get the keeper to panic and say "you can't get a NPO against me because I am not a third party"

At which point they say "good so you admit you were the driver,we will proceed with our claim".

Also just to reiterate a final point , what good is an NPO against a person who does not keep documentary records ??
Say the NPO is granted and the keeper says "Ok I will give you all the information I can. I do not know who was driving that day but here is a list of "x" number of people who I allow to drive the vehicle"

(Remember the NPO will require the keeper to give all the information he HAS at the time. It does NOT require him to gather more information from other parties ,as I understand it)

What then ? The third party has complied with the NPO in giving all the information they have and VCS still don't know who the driver probably was.

Hopefully a judge can work all this out themselves and throw this nonsense out and tell VCS to stop being so daft and wasting the courts time.:rotfl:

robredz

@ post# 160 Sirdan I reckon that is correct, they can't have it both ways. basically they are doggie paddling in the frozen Atlantic as the Titanic is going down, and they have less than 4 minutes to live before the cold gets them.