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

Welsh_Exile

bazster wrote: »

Liable for what?

The original charge - in other words as if the RK had refused to nominate the driver. Not saying the charge is lawful, it probably won't be.

bazster wrote: »

I bet they won't!

You cut my sentence short, bad form.
Here's what I actually said - "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."
The bit in bold is important, they'll not be busting any guts, it would be quite straightforward for them. If the CPS decide to take no further action (and they might, of course) then it's no skin off Old Bill's nose.
Sincerely, I would hate to collect on that bet - would you really take the risk? Especially when the system could be brought down without telling lies.

Welsh_Exile

esmerobbo wrote: »

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.

I think you're confusing False Representation under S.2 of the Fraud Act with Failing to Disclose Information under S.3.

Lack of action in previous clamping/tow away cases is not relevant.

bazster

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

The original charge - in other words as if the RK had refused to nominate the driver. Not saying the charge is lawful, it probably won't be.

Well yes of course, contrary to what some seem to think there is no escape clause in the Act for the RK by nominating a driver. If the PPC doesn't know who the driver was he holds the RK liable, doesn't matter how many false names the RK might have supplied.

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

You cut my sentence short, bad form.
Here's what I actually said - "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."
The bit in bold is important, they'll not be busting any guts, it would be quite straightforward for them. If the CPS decide to take no further action (and they might, of course) then it's no skin of Old Bill's nose.
Sincerely, I would hate to collect on that bet - would you really take the risk? Especially when the system could be brought down without telling lies.

I don't think the bit in bold is important because I don't think the police would investigate at all. Just an opinion which of course could be wrong in practice. Not gonna happen anyway (to me) because if I ever received such a notice as RK I would be keen to take it to appeal and cost them £27, so no point in fannying around with fake driver details.

trisontana

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

Just as they would not take any action if a PPC reported somebody for removing a parking ticket in spite of the "it's an offence for anyone but the driver to remove this ticket" warning on the envelope.

Welsh_Exile

bazster wrote: »

Well yes of course, contrary to what some seem to think there is no escape clause in the Act for the RK by nominating a driver. If the PPC doesn't know who the driver was he holds the RK liable, doesn't matter how many false names the RK might have supplied.

Agreed

bazster wrote: »

I don't think the bit in bold is important because I don't think the police would investigate at all. Just an opinion which of course could be wrong in practice.

I think there's a good chance they would. Again, just an opinion, but based on experience.

bazster wrote: »

Not gonna happen anyway (to me) because if I ever received such a notice as RK I would be keen to take it to appeal and cost them £27, so no point in fannying around with fake driver details.

Agreed. Why take risks when you can cause the PPC so much more grief using the appeals procedure? And then still refuse to pay!

bazster

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Agreed. Why take risks when you can cause the PPC so much more grief using the appeals procedure? And then still refuse to pay!

Perzackly.

HO87

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Agreed

I think there's a good chance they would. Again, just an opinion, but based on experience.

Agreed. Why take risks when you can cause the PPC so much more grief using the appeals procedure? And then still refuse to pay!

I agree entirely. Its common sense really. Why endanger oneself when the case against a PPC invoice is so much more valuable when left to stand on its own?

I think the chance of plod pursuing matters is slim but there is always going to be one officer who will give it a run to get out of the rain.

As for Greggs and variously allusions to doughnuts (as opposed to the American illiterate attempt at do-nut) you guys don't get it do you? These days its about getting pumped up on Red Bull and energy bars. PC Fat-B'stard went out with the Ark.

And, please, if they do go for doughnuts it is Krispy-Kreme. Not some other imitation.

jkdd77

It strikes me that, if, in relation to an unenforceable invoice, a RK falsely names a driver with the intent to cause the PPC to waste money "going on a wild goose chase" against the person so named, that would probably be a offence.

If the *sole* intent of the RK in falsely naming some other person was merely to get the PPC "off their backs", and there was no intent at all to cause any loss either to the PPC, the person named as the driver, or to any other person, then it seems doubtful that a criminal offence has been committed. Since the invoice itself is unenforceable, there can be no potential gain or loss directly attributable to the invoice itself.

The PPC could still attempt to enforce the invoice against the RK, but would presumably fail for well-known reasons as already outlined by other posters.

Proving that the RK had dishonestly, rather than merely mistakenly, named a person who was not driving might be especially tricky in practice, depending on the circumstances. That said, I would not to take any unnecessary risks, and therefore would not advocate or condone such a course of action, even though I believe that the chance of the police getting involved in a case such as this are incredibly remote.

If the PPC did subsequently sue the RK over the unpaid invoice, the judge would probably look dimly on the RK for lying about the driver's identity, and might well be less receptive to legitimate arguments as to why the invoice is unenforceable.
Of course, lying in any court proceedings would definitely constitute perverting the course of justice, which is extremely serious and is likely to lead to jail time upon conviction.

taffy056

esmerobbo wrote: »

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

pmsl that's funny, is there any legal reason you can't name a human as the registered keeper ? Can you imagine the appeal - woof woof woof growl woof woof woof

bargepole

jkdd77 wrote: »

... That said, I would not to take any unnecessary risks, and therefore would not advocate or condone such a course of action, even though I believe that the chance of the police getting involved in a case such as this are incredibly remote.

So I think the concensus of opinion, amongst those of us who regularly give advice here, is not to advise people to nominate false drivers.

It also seems, from here and elsewhere, that the majority think our advice from 1st Oct should be: 1) appeal to PPC, 2) appeal to POPLA, 3) ignore if unsuccessful.

We now need to find out from POPLA what the list of valid grounds for appeal will include (somebody I know with contacts at London Councils is trying to find out).

IMHO, all appeals should include at least one of the valid grounds (to make sure the PPC has to pay for it) and also all of the reasons why the whole thing is a complete scam.

Within the next couple of weeks I'll come up with a draft template letter, in conjunction with some of the sharper pencils on Pepipoo, and will then ask Crabman if we can put it up as a template in the Stickies.