Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

HO87

A check of my diary reveals that I am in Rugby all day on the 3rd and having nothing then until a meeting in Nottingham in the late afternoon of the 4th. Methinks a detour via Melton Mowbray is in order.

notts_phil

i am no distance from melton either so i am thinking of going to

notts_phil

vax2002 wrote: »

Passed this on to our Local news agency who cover Yorkshire, as the company is in Yorkshire they are to send a photographer and reporter down to cover the case as they have said this would be a ground breaking court decision.

Hardly ground breaking......

If its in the star can they stop using the word fine. The sheffield star is an awful paper for letting facts get in the way of a good news story!

Sirdan

notts_phil wrote: »

I think the OP is going to need some serious help here, we dont want vcs/excel getting any where with this

True but it's difficult to fathom how a Judge will react to the OPs assertion that he does not that have in his possession the information required.

I'm working on the assumption that the NPO only requires the OP to disclose any / all information he has as to who may have been driving , I don't expect it will put a duty on him to investigate the matter and report back !

That said if the OP can evidence that he could not possibly be the driver and there are several others who could be ...where next ...does VCS seek an NPO against all those he names in an attempt to coerce someone to "remember " ...not going anywhere really is it ..private individuals do not keep detailed records of private vehicle use etc.

Worth remembering that the original case out of which the NPO was born related to information held by HM Customs and Excise re imports that breached Norwich Pharmacals intellectual property rights ..in that case the Government Department responsible for controlling the importation of goods into the UK could reasonably be expected to have records to refer to....
.....but the OP and his family won't have any such records...you can order all you like with a NPO but if the person swears they don't know / can't remember ..what exactly can be done ? Nothing I would venture..

Plus if the OP has some evidence that he was on probability not driving then the NPO should probably fail as he is not "involved in any wrong doing".

As long as the OP is not being disingenuous (as in playing a Stephen Thomas defence) ..then I don't see VCS getting anything from this except the disdain of the Judge for wasting everyone's time !

Just my thoughts BTW ..I'm not legally qualified ..but I hope I'm right !!!

Coupon-mad

I think it's being done to intimidate the OP and they are hoping that he is lying about not being the driver (a bit like the set-up Thomas case...). They are hoping for a victim who is not a credible witness or who doesn't show up.

kahlenb make sure you attend in good time next week, deep breath and have your work records to hand as proof. If questioned by the judge on 4th be polite and clear with your assertion that you were not there. It will be nice to cost VCS some money in wasted Court fees and your expenses for attending!

In the meantime, start that pepipoo thread asap and link them to this thread so they can see we have already gone through all the accusations that you may be a PPC troll!

notts_phil

He's online but hasnt started his pepipoo thread.....

trisontana

Something very strange is going on. Somebody on this forum linked this thread on PePiPoo and it's been removed.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

trisontana wrote: »

Something very strange is going on. Somebody on this forum linked this thread on PePiPoo and it's been removed.

Is this it? - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62921

trisontana

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

Is this it? - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62921

Sort of. A completely new thread was also started about the NPO, that's the one that's been removed. Perhaps the mods have removed it becuase of duplication.

NeverAgain_2

My understanding of NPOs is they are quite complex to apply for - expensive - and the court must take account of the nature and seriousness of the dispute.

The clear inference there is an NPO will not be considered for the relatively trivial sum involved in a parking dispute.

In many ways it matters not if an NPO is granted in this case, because the next application, if there is one, will be just as difficult and expensive.

Bear in mind the costs position is clear, the NPO is at the expense of the applicant, whatever the outcome.

The parking company must make an overall loss on this case.

Any parking company applying for lots of NPOs will soon go bust.

Going back to this case - which still doesn't ring true to me - I wonder if the parking company is taking a punt in the county court, but will not go through with any formal NPO application.