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

ripped_off_driver

Interesting debate but what it comes down to is there there could ever be an intent to cause a loss when the invoice is either unenforcable or believed to be so by the person making the declaration. This seems to be a matter of opinion. I don't believe that the causing of additional costs etc can ever be termed a loss if the original invoice could not be.

bazster

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Section 2 deals with Fraud by False Representation:-

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

You mean like sending someone an invoice when you know you have no contract with them, and yet claiming that you do?

verityboo

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

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.

I can't see the Police busting a gut in that way when I confirm that the driver was Mickey Mouse c/o Disneyland Paris just because I overstayed 2 minutes in a free carpark, there never was any loss

bargepole

verityboo wrote: »

I can't see the Police busting a gut ...

Ahem ... Sorry Mr Perkins, that's a civil matter sir. Now can you please leave the front desk, as we all want to get down to the canteen before they run out of doughnuts ...

Welsh_Exile

verityboo wrote: »

I can't see the Police busting a gut in that way when I confirm that the driver was Mickey Mouse c/o Disneyland Paris just because I overstayed 2 minutes in a free carpark, there never was any loss

Neither can I.
However, I can see the PPC then holding the RK liable because they had supplied obviously frivolous details. Anyway, that's not the scenario I have in mind.


Suppose the RK were to give what might be called credible but false driver details.
The PPC makes some enquiries, sends letters, does Experian checks, whatever, before establishing they've been lied to.
They make an allegation of fraud to the police, supplying them with a statement detailing what has happened and the costs involved. Remember they know the RK's name and address and have the form he returned with the false details.
The police will investigate and might well consider that they have an easy case - arrest and interview, CPS advice and a clear-up, thanks very much. Meanwhile what the RK thought was a jolly jape winding up a PPC has cost him a few hours banged up in a police station and a criminal record.

ManxRed

bargepole wrote: »

Ahem ... Sorry Mr Perkins, that's a civil matter sir. Now can you please leave the front desk, as we all want to get down to [STRIKE]the canteen[/STRIKE] Greggs before they run out of [STRIKE]doughnuts[/STRIKE] pasties ...

This isn't America you know!!!!

bazster

verityboo wrote: »

I can't see the Police busting a gut in that way when I confirm that the driver was Mickey Mouse c/o Disneyland Paris just because I overstayed 2 minutes in a free carpark, there never was any loss

The police don't seem to consider fraud to be a crime at all these days.

Welsh_Exile

bargepole wrote: »

Ahem ... Sorry Mr Perkins, that's a civil matter sir. Now can you please leave the front desk, as we all want to get down to the canteen before they run out of doughnuts ...

Perky will meet with a civilian reception officer at the front desk, not a police officer. They will probably record his allegation rather than argue with him. After that - see my post above. Plenty of of time for pasties or doughnuts when they're waiting for the CPS to review the case (and the RK is enjoying a microwaved meal in a police cell).

bazster

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Neither can I.
However, I can see the PPC then holding the RK liable because they had supplied obviously frivolous details. Anyway, that's not the scenario I have in mind.

Liable for what?

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

The police will investigate.

I bet they won't!

esmerobbo

You would need to make a false declaration or tell lies under oath.

Cant see under what authority a PPC could ask you to make a declaration.

Even if you make a declaration they are normally worded "to the best of my knowledge"

If it got too court then yes you could get into doo doo for telling porkies!

Given the fact the police wont act when a clamper steals somebodies car I cant see them being too interested in this!


Didn't someone on Pepipoo register the car in the dogs name? That would be interesting.