The entire Private Parking Ticket business model has just fallen apart.

Stephen_Leak

miketaff1408 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the driver initially lost the case in the first place? I know he was only ordered to pay £42.50, but wondered why he lost at all.

The £42.50 was the costs awarded against his wife, the registered keeper of the car, for the issue of a Norwich Pharmacal Order. Where an innocent third party has information relating to unlawful conduct, which would assist the person suffering damage, a court can order them to divulge that information. As she wasn't also driving, a defence of self-incrimination couldn't be used.

give_them_FA

I believe the £42.50 was wrongly awarded in any case. In applying for an NPO against a third party the applicant must bear the cost in any event. But the procedure is such a rarity that perhaps no-one was aware.... the matter has been inaccurately reported in the Mail article.

I believe "self-incrimination" only applies in criminal matters.

Stephen_Leak

give_them_FA wrote: »

I believe the £42.50 was wrongly awarded in any case. In applying for an NPO against a third party the applicant must bear the cost in any event. But the procedure is such a rarity that perhaps no-one was aware.... the matter has been inaccurately reported in the Mail article.

I believe "self-incrimination" only applies in criminal matters.

Yes. Because of the reasons for the actual case failing, the request and award of the NPO did as well.

The key phrase in the definition of an NPO is "innocent third party". With just the RK and driver in the car ...

benham3160

give_them_FA

Can't stop laughing!

trisontana

Well, that's this year's PPC Christmas card taken care of !

Trebor16

give_them_FA wrote: »

I believe the £42.50 was wrongly awarded in any case. In applying for an NPO against a third party the applicant must bear the cost in any event. But the procedure is such a rarity that perhaps no-one was aware.... the matter has been inaccurately reported in the Mail article.

I believe "self-incrimination" only applies in criminal matters.

I would agree with you GTFA. The actions of the keeper were not unlawful so the NPO should not have been granted, but I understand the NPO application was heard without the defendant being present.

Paperbird

"but now they will have to give written authorisation to the PPC to pursue tickets"
Is this separate authorization for each ticket or just once to cover all the tickets they give out ?

give_them_FA

They will have to rewrite contracts. Whether landowners will want to give these crooks such powers is another issue.

torontoboy45

Paperbird wrote: »

"but now they will have to give written authorisation to the PPC to pursue tickets"
Is this separate authorization for each ticket or just once to cover all the tickets they give out ?

as mentioned earlier, there's little chance of brand names wishing to be directly associated with litigious activities initiated by their 'agents'. maybe -just maybe - the likes of homebase, sainsbury's, etc. will now come to their senses and realise exactly who they've jumped into bed with.