Why do you need to reply to a PCN?

Frank35

I know from reading this website that the advice is now to reply to a PCN rather than ignore it, however, I'm not sure why? If you ignore a PCN, they may take you to the small claims court but if they do, they still need to prove who was driving, their contract with the landowner, loss incurred etc etc, so as long as the person receiving a PCN doesn't mind defending the allegation in court, and of course making a counterclaim for loss of earnings etc, there is no problem, or have I missed something??

bargepole

Frank35 wrote: »

I know from reading this website that the advice is now to reply to a PCN rather than ignore it, however, I'm not sure why? If you ignore a PCN, they may take you to the small claims court but if they do, they still need to prove who was driving, their contract with the landowner, loss incurred etc etc, so as long as the person receiving a PCN doesn't mind defending the allegation in court, and of course making a counterclaim for loss of earnings etc, there is no problem, or have I missed something??

Err, yes, you missed the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which enables them to pursue the keeper if the driver is not named.


Also, since the decision in Parking Eye v Beavis, they may not have to prove any losses.


Good luck with the counterclaim for loss of earnings, btw.

ManxRed

Yes, you've missed Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (three years ago) which - as long as the parking company meet several criteria laid down in the legislation - can pursue the Registered Keeper for any charges that the driver may be liable for.

It means that they can (and do, quite a lot) take Registered Keepers to court for incursions by drivers that may not have been them.

In conjunction with Schedule 4, the parking companies were obliged to have an independent appeals process, and it was soon discovered that, using the right appeal points, the independent appeals body upheld appeals and cancelled tickets pretty much every time.

So that became the tactic.

In the meantime, a new 'independent' appeals body has been set up (and I use inverted commas for a good reason) which pretty much rejects every appeal submitted, so tactics are evolving again.

Then, we'll soon have a new European Directive which will state that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) will need to be offered to consumers for at least 12 months, which means that parking company's appeals windows may have to be extended quite dramatically (although we're not sure how they'll react yet). The tactics may then change again.

My point being, the tactics for fighting these tickets are evolving all the time depending on current legislation and other factors.

Umkomaas

they still need to prove who was driving,

Really? Have a little read of this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

And this:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

so as long as the person receiving a PCN doesn't mind defending the allegation in court,

Do you realise the work needed to 'defend' compared with the work needed to 'appeal'? It's most certainly not just a case of rocking up there and firing off a rant in front of a Judge! And definitely not saying 'I wasn't the driver, prove otherwise' (unless absolutely true). A bit more reading:

CPS -v- Stephen Thomas

http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/private-land-enforcement/court-cases/court-cases-for-private-parking-tickets/

and of course making a counterclaim for loss of earnings

Only if they 'win' (do you really fancy playing Russian Roulette with 3 chambers charged?). Maximum 'loss of earnings' is £90. Good luck with that one!

or have I missed something??

Plenty!

Frank35

Thanks for the replies especially Manxred. Bargepole, I am aware of POF and that they can chase the RK, my point is they still have an uphill battle usually. Unkomass, I've read those links and it doesn't really change my thoughts so I don't think I have missed much, the onus would still be on the parking company to prove their case and as long as the PCN recipient hasn't made any errors, I think most judges would find in favour of the defendant. By the way, I haven't received a PCN, I'm just curious as to how this will work if it progressed to the court stage. I appreciate that some PC will take cases to court but I would have thought most wouldn't bother unless they had a really strong case and most haven't. And yes I have been to the small claims court several times and have enjoyed the experience especially when faced with a barrister on the other side who loses the case and gets a right ticking off from the judge when 30 minutes earlier they were trying to persuade me to drop the case as I, quote "Didn't have a case".

Umkomaas

I think most judges would find in favour of the defendant

Ask Barry Beavis!

I appreciate that some PC will take cases to court but I would have thought most wouldn't bother

ParkingEye - over 30,000 court papers issued last year.

neil.net

If someone wants to leave it to the court stage, so be it. However, if the charge can be cancelled it's usually easier in terms of time, effort and cost to cancel it at the appeal stage.

Frank35

How many of the 30,000 have PE won?

bod1467

Enough for it to be worthwhile them doing it. In many cases just the filing of the claim gets people to pay - those don't even go as far as a hearing. (Every case PE take to a hearing costs them more than the value of the claim - even if they win. It's this litigious threat they want to present to try and coerce people into paying).

bargepole

Frank35 wrote: »

How many of the 30,000 have PE won?

Less than 1,000 went as far as the hearing stage. The others either settled, got withdrawn, or resulted in a default Judgment because the defendant ignored/didn't receive the court forms.


Of the cases which went to a contested hearing, PE won around 60%.

Frank35

OK interesting, thanks all for the replies!!! Keep on fighting!