Private parking tickets

HO87

thenudeone wrote: »

I'm not commenting on any other subject, but as far as postage goes, proof of posting is probably all that is required, as a result of this:

Interpretation Act 1978
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

May I emphasise the provision within this section that means that any presumption of service is rebuttable - and, in any event, hardly relates to ordinary letters as the OP's daughter has yet to reach the Notice Before Action stage.

I agree with give them FA. The police are highly unlikely to involve themselves in this issue. Their priorities are, rightly or wrongly, focussed elsewhere and a company seemingly attempting to bully a private individual over an alleged debt - no matter how flimsy their case - rates pretty low on their radar. This is the very thing that prompted Ms Ferguson in her pursuit of British Gas Trading to use the civil route - s.3 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - that the law provides. She was vindicated in court with BGT being absolutely slated in the judgment. It is a matter of some concern that many other companies appear to have completely ignored the case and continue making unwarranted demands with what amounts to menaces.

The threat of a Norwich Pharmacal Order is, in my view - and I suspect that of many others - a straightforward menace. The original order was made, in 1974, to allow the Norwich Pharmacal (NP) company to obtain documents in the possession of (what was then) HM Customs and Excise to enable them to pursue another company who were illicitly importing a chemical for which NP had an exclusive licence. NP won and HM C& E grudgingly handed over the evidence that allowed NP to pursue the third party.

In the context of a PPC ticket Civil Enforcement are seeking to make the threat that they will obtain an order (at the substantial cost of the registered keeper - RK) to force the RK to divulge the details of the driver of the vehicle involved in an alleged breach of contract.

This has been attempted by PPC's in the past and, in respect of registered keepers other than hire companies, has failed dismally. Rarely does the average registered keeper maintain detailed records of who uses their car from hour to hour or even day to day (remember that the Order is designed to disclose documents - not recollections) and the costs in running such an application are completely disproportionate. It would seem that rather the threat is designed to frighten, that is to harass, its recipient hence my belief that the issuers of such threats deserve to be pursued.

Listen to give them FA - he has already done so and won - with a nice little lump of money to go with it. The money-making PPC's all have bulging coffers. Why not assist them in emptying them a touch?

bluelight

give_them_FA wrote: »

Unfortunately, and with no disrespect to Bluelight's former employers, it can be difficult to persuade the police to take up matters that are in any way out of the ordinary, even though, as he says, they are in clear breach of criminal law.

I would therefore re-iterate that the way forward is to sue them for harassment. It really is easy, they have no real option but to pay, especially if you include the landowner in the claim, who may be shocked by the criminal conduct of those it was duped into using as its agents.

And crossed with your later post, bluelight, an injunction is nice but a nice little sum in damages (Section 3) is better...

You can sort out the damages issue at the same time you apply for the injunction. Things you can claim for include financial losses and anxiety caused. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a very effective piece of legislation and can be used against PPCs with considerable effect.

bluelight

HO87 wrote: »

May I emphasise the provision within this section that means that any presumption of service is rebuttable - and, in any event, hardly relates to ordinary letters as the OP's daughter has yet to reach the Notice Before Action stage.

I agree with give them FA. The police are highly unlikely to involve themselves in this issue. Their priorities are, rightly or wrongly, focussed elsewhere and a company seemingly attempting to bully a private individual over an alleged debt - no matter how flimsy their case - rates pretty low on their radar. This is the very thing that prompted Ms Ferguson in her pursuit of British Gas Trading to use the civil route - s.3 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - that the law provides. She was vindicated in court with BGT being absolutely slated in the judgment. It is a matter of some concern that many other companies appear to have completely ignored the case and continue making unwarranted demands with what amounts to menaces.

The threat of a Norwich Pharmacal Order is, in my view - and I suspect that of many others - a straightforward menace. The original order was made, in 1974, to allow the Norwich Pharmacal (NP) company to obtain documents in the possession of (what was then) HM Customs and Excise to enable them to pursue another company who were illicitly importing a chemical for which NP had an exclusive licence. NP won and HM C& E grudgingly handed over the evidence that allowed NP to pursue the third party.

In the context of a PPC ticket Civil Enforcement are seeking to make the threat that they will obtain an order (at the substantial cost of the registered keeper - RK) to force the RK to divulge the details of the driver of the vehicle involved in an alleged breach of contract.

This has been attempted by PPC's in the past and, in respect of registered keepers other than hire companies, has failed dismally. Rarely does the average registered keeper maintain detailed records of who uses their car from hour to hour or even day to day (remember that the Order is designed to disclose documents - not recollections) and the costs in running such an application are completely disproportionate. It would seem that rather the threat is designed to frighten, that is to harass, its recipient hence my belief that the issuers of such threats deserve to be pursued.

Listen to give them FA - he has already done so and won - with a nice little lump of money to go with it. The money-making PPC's all have bulging coffers. Why not assist them in emptying them a touch?

What you describe in your post is Blackmail per se and carries a maximum penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. In practice, the average sentence for Blackmail is 3-6 years, dependant on gravity of the offence.

The police have become policitised and many serving officers are leaving the police service in droves or planning to leave because of low morale. That is why they are reluctant to act.

As I've already said, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a very effective piece of legislation in dealing with PPCs. However, the Criminal Law is available to deal with the criminal aspects of PPCs activities, including Section 127, Communications Act 2003 and Section 1, Malicious Communications Act 1988.

I would advise that the criminal route is only used when the harassment is persistent and serious, including the PPC making repeated menacing or threatening telephone calls or sending threatening or menacing emails.

give_them_FA

I am dealing with a claim brought by a PPC (not UKCPS for once) and the victim has suggested that they are still receiving threatening telephone calls from the company even though the matter has been placed before a Court. I believe this may be attempting to pervert the course of justice, but would welcome your opinions as ex-officers, gentlemen?

Sirdan

give_them_FA wrote: »

I am dealing with a claim brought by a PPC (not UKCPS for once) and the victim has suggested that they are still receiving threatening telephone calls from the company even though the matter has been placed before a Court. I believe this may be attempting to pervert the course of justice, but would welcome your opinions as ex-officers, gentlemen?

Not being legally qualified I won't post my opinion but this is worth a look :-

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a03


Particularly the section referring to "Interferring or Harming Witnesses -Civil Proceedings"

I assume the proceedings are civil ?

give_them_FA

It is civil. The usual route now of MCOL. It's possibly the worst worded claim I have ever seen, and should be a candidate for a summary strike out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. However the attempt to intimidate is very much more serious IMHO.

HO87

bluelight wrote: »

What you describe in your post is Blackmail per se and carries a maximum penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. In practice, the average sentence for Blackmail is 3-6 years, dependant on gravity of the offence.

The police have become policitised and many serving officers are leaving the police service in droves or planning to leave because of low morale. That is why they are reluctant to act.

As I've already said, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a very effective piece of legislation in dealing with PPCs. However, the Criminal Law is available to deal with the criminal aspects of PPCs activities, including Section 127, Communications Act 2003 and Section 1, Malicious Communications Act 1988.

I would advise that the criminal route is only used when the harassment is persistent and serious, including the PPC making repeated menacing or threatening telephone calls or sending threatening or menacing emails.

Grannies and eggs come to mind - but no worry :p. For the broad reason outlined in my original post the criminal burden of proof is the problem (setting aside the possibility, let alone the probability or otherwise of a complaint being accepted by the police). We should also keep in mind that it is the belief that the defendent holds as to his actions and the reasons for them that is the deciding factorn as far as Blackmail is concerned. On an individual basis proving that a defendent did not know that he was not entitled to make a demand or did so believing that his actions were warranted are likely to be substantial stumbling blocks.

However, there is absolutely no reason why the same facts cannot form the basis of a claim in damages (and an application for an injunction) against a "legal person" in the shape of a body corporate (something that is never going to happen in a criminal arena). The civil burden of proof is far less onerous and does not require the evidencing of mens rea in the same way as s.21 does.

The essence of the matter, civilly or criminally, is always going to be the making of the demand without reasonable cause. In the instant case the OP's daughter has notified CE that she was not the driver but they have persisted with their demands lacking, when they did so a lawful reason for so doing, it would seem. From a civil perspective the body corporate is far more exposed that an individual within it in this regard.

My argument is based not on the likelihood of the police taking action but simply from the perspective of the ease with which the matter could be proved in a county court as opposed to the comparative mountain that would need to be climbed in a crown court. District judges are, after all, far more likely to take a pragmatic view than a red-rober who is constantly obliged to trip the light fantastic with the Appeal Court and juggle eels with the vagaries of our jury system.

give_them_FA wrote: »

I am dealing with a claim brought by a PPC (not UKCPS for once) and the victim has suggested that they are still receiving threatening telephone calls from the company even though the matter has been placed before a Court. I believe this may be attempting to pervert the course of justice, but would welcome your opinions as ex-officers, gentlemen?

I'd go along with that view although it is likely that these calls are actually from a DCA, I suspect. With that in mind I'd prefer s.39 Criminal Justice & Police Act. As the DCA, if this is in fact the case, will undoubtedly be acting as the PPC's agents I believe an offence could be made out. On the other hand if the recipient of these calls records them and this is supplied to the trial judge at the hearing then I suspect the PPC's goose will be cooked in short order. Especially if a counterclaim is made for harassment.