Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

Sirdan

"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."



"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."

Interesting particularly as it hinges on the word penalty, if a judge were to allow non disclosure then he would effectively be ruling that the "parking charge" is a penalty which means the claim under contract law should be struck out as penalties are not allowed in contracts.

If however he ruled that the self incrimination privilege was allowed then he is ruling that a parking charge is not a penalty and therefore it must be "pre-determined reasonable estimate of loses or damages" ..so again the Parking Company is stymied as the ridiculous amount claimed can not possibly equate to their losses/damages.

So in summary the whole point is in fact a moot point except for the example you quote

""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."

If you were to say that in a hearing you have effectively admitted to being the driver if you are claiming privilege against self incrimination.

Under those circumstances as this would be a sworn statement in a court I would expect the parking company to proceed to the County Court and use this statement against you ..and if they were feeling vindictive they might also inform the Police that you have sworn in court to driving without a licence.!!!"

NeverAgain_2

...so in summary the whole point is in fact a moot point...

It certainly seems so to me.

And I can't see it ever being tested in the circumstances we are talking about here.

Sirdan

NeverAgain wrote: »

...so in summary the whole point is in fact a moot point...

It certainly seems so to me.

And I can't see it ever being tested in the circumstances we are talking about here.

Quite so.

To threaten this sort of action against a keeper when the keeper has already asserted that they were not the driver could easily fall under the definition of harassment as per the Protection from Harassment Act.

Whether the PPC and their Solicitors like it or not to continue to threaten such action against the keeper when there is no evidence that the keeper owes the debt is almost certainly harassment.

Perhaps the OP should tell them he can't actually remember who was driving on that day/time so he has no information to give them ..any threats after that are even more likely to be harassment.

The OP may like to point them in the direction of" Ferguson v British Gas" ...just so they clearly understand where they are headed with their repeated threats.

All good fun if the OP has the time or as per usual they could just IGNORE the idiots.

kahlenb

Hi all,
I am new here, and just happened across this thread while googling the NPO's. today i recieved a court date for just such an order from Excel Parking (Vehicle control services). I have a court date for the 4th of july for the NPO and the 18th for the main hearing for the case against me. As ever, I was not the driver in my case and replied to the court as such, now they want an NPO to make me tell them, unfortunately I was away from home (at work) when the car was used by one of my family members. I have no way of knowing who was driving, or giving them the evidence they require, so i'm stuck, stressed and worried sick.

Sirdan

kahlenb wrote: »

Hi all,
I am new here, and just happened across this thread while googling the NPO's. today i recieved a court date for just such an order from Excel Parking (Vehicle control services). I have a court date for the 4th of july for the NPO and the 18th for the main hearing for the case against me. As ever, I was not the driver in my case and replied to the court as such, now they want an NPO to make me tell them, unfortunately I was away from home (at work) when the car was used by one of my family members. I have no way of knowing who was driving, or giving them the evidence they require, so i'm stuck, stressed and worried sick.

You'll excuse me if I don't believe a word you are saying ...

esmerobbo

kahlenb wrote: »

Hi all,
I am new here, and just happened across this thread while googling the NPO's. today i recieved a court date for just such an order from Excel Parking (Vehicle control services). I have a court date for the 4th of july for the NPO and the 18th for the main hearing for the case against me. As ever, I was not the driver in my case and replied to the court as such, now they want an NPO to make me tell them, unfortunately I was away from home (at work) when the car was used by one of my family members. I have no way of knowing who was driving, or giving them the evidence they require, so i'm stuck, stressed and worried sick.

If you tell them on the 4th July Mickey Mouse was driving what are they going to do to you on 18th July?

Morphed

I signed up just to say:

The above poster is CLEARLY a moron from a private parking scamerati company.

Ignore, and continue NOT paying their silly invoices

Sir_Roger_deLodger

I smell pies.

kahlenb

You may be excused for not beliving this as i have not found another thread where they actually follwed through, but i guarantee you this is for real. I recieved the letter today, and was only asking for advice. The NPO has been requested and I just wanted to know what to reply back, THIS IS NOT A SCAM, nor a ruse by VCS to invade the forum, it is a genuine request for help.

Morphed

Cool story bro.