Private Parking Charge Notice

mtm65

I posted this earlier in the wrong section so thanks to those who have already replied and informed me of this section.

My husband was given a charge notice from a private firm. He informed the company that he was not the driver who parked the vehicle in their parking lot and that he would not disclose the name of the driver as he is not obliged to do so. He was told that the company would take him to court to force him to disclose the name of the driver. Can they do this? They said they had successfully done so recently with another owner of a vehicle who would similarly not disclose the name of the driver. Does anyone know of such a case or is this just another line they are spinning?
Your thoughts???

bargepole

mtm65 wrote: »

.. Does anyone know of such a case or is this just another line they are spinning?
Your thoughts???

They could apply to court under a "Norwich Pharmacal Order", which, if granted, means the name of the driver has to be disclosed.

However they still have to overcome a mountain of hurdles to successfully claim against the driver, and nearly always lose when properly defended.

Best just to ignore and don't contact them any more.

demented_weasel

What was the name of the private parking company?

Stephen_Leak

In 2011, Vehicle Control Services (VCS), who are a subsidiary of Excel, applied for a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) against Susan Ibbotson, to compel her to divulge who was driving her car at the time. It was rejected. They re-applied and, in 2012, one was granted.

However, they then lost the case against the driver, her husband, Ronald Ibbotson. The judge ruled that only the car park owner (CPO) can charge for parking and take alleged offenders to court. He also ordered VCS to refund the £42.50 cost of the NPO.

See VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012.

There are also two other landmark cases, HM Revenue & Customs vs. VCS Parking Control, Lower Tax Tribunal, 2012 and VCS Parking Control vs. HM Revenue & Customs (Appeal), Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. In these cases also, the judges ruled that only the CPO can charge for parking and take alleged offenders to court. The Upper Tax Tribunal is equivalent to the High Court, and therefore its judgements set legal precedents.

I wouldn't expect a PPC employee to know, or even to be told about, any of this. One PPC employee has allegedly referred to an NPO as “a case involving Norwich Council”.

mtm65

That was really helpful thank you. The company in question is Highview Parking. Do we know if there is a difference between implementing in Scotland and England/Wales as our case is in Scotland?

Coupon-mad

mtm65 wrote: »

That was really helpful thank you. The company in question is Highview Parking. Do we know if there is a difference between implementing in Scotland and England/Wales as our case is in Scotland?

Same scam, same 'ignore' advice applies.

Covered only days ago on this similar thread, also about Highview in Scotland:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4105053

Stop writing to them it was a waste of time. On this forum we do not recommend using Martin Lewis' old approach from the 2009 article; he said write and say if you weren't driving but that's pointless in most cases right now. At the moment we advise ignoring any fake PCN but no harm done, just ignore the letters now and compare them to the letter-chains pictures shown in all their glory in the second-to-top thread (PPC letters/threats).

Watch the Watchdog clip on that thread as well, show your husband and stop thinking you have to reply to a scam. You wouldn't reply to a series of phishing emails and this is similar.

HTH

Stephen_Leak

mtm65 wrote: »

That was really helpful thank you. The company in question is Highview Parking. Do we know if there is a difference between implementing in Scotland and England/Wales as our case is in Scotland?

Yes. They will threaten you with bailiffs, instead of sheriffs.