Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
252 replies 30.1K views
2456726

Replies

  • NeverAgain_2NeverAgain_2 Forumite
    1.8K Posts
    ...Not the case statutory defence against self incrimination only applies to criminal cases not civil hearings...

    http://ld.practicallaw.com/0-211-3137

    Quoting: "The respondent may be able to refuse to provide the information on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination."

    Several other legal websites say the same thing.
  • SirdanSirdan Forumite
    1.3K Posts
    NeverAgain wrote: »
    ...Not the case statutory defence against self incrimination only applies to criminal cases not civil hearings...

    http://ld.practicallaw.com/0-211-3137

    Quoting: "The respondent may be able to refuse to provide the information on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination."

    Several other legal websites say the same thing.

    Somewhat misleading what it should say is this
    "Privilege against self-incrimination exempts a person from being compelled to produce documents or provide information which might incriminate him in any potential or current criminal proceedings in England and Wales. "

    The key word being criminal -PPC claims are as we know very much a civil matter. So if a PPC sought a NPO re their claim the matter of self incrimination is not relevant.
  • CoblcrisCoblcris Forumite
    1.9K Posts
    Serious as a heart attack.

    However HO87 sums up my approach nicely.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    98.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    pinnygig wrote: »

    Does anyone have any advice or experience of this as I have not seen mentioned on any forums

    Thanks




    I have!

    Google search for 'Norwich Pharmacal parking'

    Lots and lots of forum posts, all saying the same.

    Ignore their desperate drivel and stop writing back to them unless you are of the mindset to write and say 'bring it on!'
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • BarryWBarryW Forumite
    68 Posts
    Dear Civil Enforcement

    I am sitting in the smallest room in the house and I have your letter in front of me. Very soon it will be behind me.

    That should suffice.
  • Driver8Driver8 Forumite
    743 Posts
    ✭✭
    PRIVATE PARKING TICKETS - DON'T PAY!
    IT IS NOT A FINE! YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL!

    This is an information page for the thousands of people who receive "tickets" from private companies in the UK ever day at supermarkets, retail parks, and in any other privately-owned carpark.

    We are NOT encouraging anybody to openly flout parking restrictions on private land, or to refuse to pay reasonable charges for parking. Landowners have a right to make reasonable charges for the use of their land.

    For advice specific to your case, you should visit the forums at http://forums.pepipoo.com or http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences.

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

    1. What you should know about these companies

    It is important to remember that private parking companies (or PPCs as they are often called) have NO OFFICIAL POWERS - that's right, none at all! They give out their "tickets" on the basis that you have seen the signs in their car park and that you have therefore agreed to a contract obliging you to pay a certain sum of money.


    2. What happens to people who don't pay?

    In 99.9% of cases, absolutely NOTHING! The company pays the DVLA £2.50 to get your address, and then sends lots of threatening letters. In the main, these letters can be safely IGNORED. The only way the company can actually force you to pay is by taking you to the small claims court, which costs them even more money. And they are by no means guaranteed to win! And they practically never do.

    The two main reasons for this (among others) are the following:

    - Only the person DRIVING the car could ever have agreed to any such parking contract. The company can only get the Registered Keeper's address from the DVLA: you don't have to tell them who was driving.

    -Many of these charges are so extortionately high that they constitute a penalty, which is unenforceable in a consumer contract.


    3. Can they affect my credit rating?

    NO! The only way your credit rating could be affected by ignoring private parking companies is if you were taken to court, lost, and then still refused to pay. But they will not take you to court.


    IN SHORT

    The vast majority of the time, you can safely IGNORE tickets from private parking companies, they are not official fines.

    The vast majority of the time, you can safely IGNORE the threatening letters, including those from debt collection agencies.

    You DO NOT have to pay a penny of your hard-earned money to these companies. Remember that the chances of being taken to court are very slim indeed.

    DO NOT IGNORE COURT PAPERS!
    If you receive real court papers from a private parking company (very rare) then you should go to http://forums.pepipoo.com or http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences for help defending the claim. Do not be afraid to sign up and ask questions regarding any paperwork you are not sure about.



    Don’t believe the above? Watch a solicitor on Watchdog advising you what to do with the scam invoices.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

    THEY ARE NOT FINES

    Only the Police, Courts or Council’s can fine you. NOT a private company, please remember that.
  • pinnygigpinnygig Forumite
    8 Posts
    thanks to everyone for your advice etc I will stand my ground.
    xxx
  • vax2002vax2002
    7.2K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Now you know what happens when you contact them.
    Welcome to the hooked fish list.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • ...Somewhat misleading what it should say is this: "Privilege against self-incrimination exempts a person from being compelled to produce documents or provide information which might incriminate him in any potential or current criminal proceedings in England and Wales. "...

    Sirdan,

    That is only a commentary.

    The wording of section 14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, says privilege applies to 'proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty'.

    I would suggest the latter applies here, although I accept the term 'offence' suggests a criminal offence rather than a civil dispute.

    Things get a bit more complicated when you consider something such as a copyright dispute which may be dealt with either in the civil court or as a criminal matter, but under the same legislation.

    In any event, I wonder if the person claiming privilege has to specify which offence he's worried about.

    And it could apply, or be said to apply, in a parking matter.

    "I am not going to reveal who was driving because the driver had no licence and I fear he or she may be prosecuted for that."

    Here's a quote from another legal website - which I fully accept says privilege applies in criminal proceedings.

    But that is only their commentary. :)

    The basic position under English law: The privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings is recognised as a basic freedom under English common law.
    It is restated in section 14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 as: "The right of a person in any legal proceedings other than criminal proceedings to refuse to answer any question or produce any document or thing if to do so would tend to expose that person to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty."

    http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=227266
  • CoblcrisCoblcris Forumite
    1.9K Posts
    It is of course up to the claimant to prove their case.
    However, in these civil small claims the judge may decide on the balance of probabilities which effectively reduces the standard of proof required.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides