Will it be legal to give False driver details to PPC?

Welsh_Exile

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Thanks if the original person wasn't going to pay anyway then is it really causing a loss?

But i think you have drawn on an important bit there

If you are right and Person A makes the statement then it would be themselves committing the offence rather then person B who becomes the *driver*

I think if this is the case then obviously this a dead duck but be good to get full clarification on it

To be clear - the loss I have in mind is the extra cost the PPC/debt collector incurs in trying to recover the alleged debt as a result of being lied to, not the debt itself.

ripped_off_driver

Here are the CPS charging guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/

Personally I don't think the CPS would ever waste their time with this kind of thing. It is the intention of the person that counts and if that person does not believe the charge is enforcable then how can they intend to cause a loss to the PPC?

ManxRed

If there is no loss in the first place then you cannot add admin costs of chasing that loss though.

BASFORDLAD

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Here are the CPS charging guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/

Personally I don't think the CPS would ever waste their time with this kind of thing. It is the intention of the person that counts and if that person does not believe the charge is enforcable then how can they intend to cause a loss to the PPC?

Indeed but one or two companies would try and push this for sure

Welsh_Exile

ManxRed wrote: »

If there is no loss in the first place then you cannot add admin costs of chasing that loss though.

We're not talking about costs in a civil case, though.
If the elements of the offence under The Fraud Act are made out; in this case -

Dishonesty
False representation
Intent to cause a loss

- then you would be at risk of criminal proceedings. Now, depending on someone's record, I'm pretty sure the CPS would advise the police to caution for this but I don't think that even the risk of a caution on your record is worth it.

ripped_off_driver

No doubt Perky would have a go (he hasn't anything better to do anyway) but it does not mean he would get anywhere. As the Guidelines say:

"Prosecutors should guard against the criminal law being used as a debt collection agency or to protect the commercial interests of companies and organisations."

Couldn't have put it better.

BASFORDLAD

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

We're not talking about costs in a civil case, though.
If the elements of the offence under The Fraud Act are made out; in this case -

Dishonesty
False representation
Intent to cause a loss

- then you would be at risk of criminal proceedings. Now, depending on someone's record, I'm pretty sure the CPS would advise the police to caution for this but I don't think that even the risk of a caution on your record is worth it.

No definately wouldnt be worth it in the slightest

taffy056

But isn't the fraud act to do with criminal law ? This is civil. Also it could be argued that these invoices don't represent any kind of loss to the ppc involved as its purely profit. It's been proved in court that signs, admin costs, cctv , staff costs etc are operative costs and tax deductible, so would have cost the company that in any case.

LincolnshireYokel

IMHO Its irrelevant that the charge is unenforceable, because one element of fraud is intent, and intent is absolute, irrespective of if the ability to defraud (because the charge is unenforceable) isnt present.

Welsh_Exile

taffy056 wrote: »

But isn't the fraud act to do with criminal law ? This is civil. Also it could be argued that these invoices don't represent any kind of loss to the ppc involved as its purely profit. It's been proved in court that signs, admin costs, cctv , staff costs etc are operative costs and tax deductible, so would have cost the company that in any case.

Yes - the criminal law. Police, arrest, fingerprints, photographs, DNA sample, interview and a criminal record.

Forget the original parking charge - if you lie about the driver with the intent of causing a loss then you'd be in the frame.
The Fraud Act is all about the conduct of the defendant.
The costs involved in following up on false driver details stand on their own as a loss, it matters not that you believe the original charge to be unlawful.