Smart Park PCN - non UK

Guys_Dad

POFA applies to land in England and Wales. It does not exclude non-residents if the contravention arose in England or Wales.

What is the case is that the PPC will lack authority or the will to pursue a case outside England/Wales court jurisdiction.

Fruitcake

Guys_Dad wrote: »

POFA applies to land in England and Wales. It does not exclude non-residents if the contravention arose in England or Wales.

What is the case is that the PPC will lack authority or the will to pursue a case outside England/Wales court jurisdiction.

I appreciate what you are saying, and agree that in the end it will come down to jurisdiction.

We often tell posters that the POFA does not apply to keepers who live in Scotland which is in the UK.
In the same vein, I am saying that it cannot therefore apply to keepers who live outside the UK.
It can be argued that the Geographical Extent of Keeper liability does not extend outside E+W, since each and every paragraph within the POFA has the extent applied, not just the applicability to the location of the alleged event.

I was trying to ensure that the OP conveys the uphill battle the scammers will have to make. They have received a NTH, have confirmed they were the keeper on the day, and they don't live in the UK. After all, we are talking about Not so Smart here.

JSY

Hi

I did a bit of research myself over the weekend and also came across this which would apply in my case, maybe?

---

sorry, as a new user it will not let me post the link

Enforcing England and Wales judgments abroad

If you have obtained a judgment or court order, you will want to enforce it in a jurisdiction where the judgment debtor has assets or is located. Methods of enforcing abroad depend largely on the nature of the judgment or order and where it is to be enforced.
Countries can conveniently be split into one or more of four categories which, in descending order of ease and convenience, are:

• countries to which the European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulation applies;
• countries which have signed the Brussels Regulation or the Lugano Convention;
• countries with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement in place; - applies in my case
• countries for which none of the above apply - notably the USA, Japan and China.

It may also be out of date - April 2013

---

I'm no expert on this as it is the first time I have been in the position.
All very confusing

Umkomaas

JSY wrote: »

Hi

I did a bit of research myself over the weekend and also came across this which would apply in my case, maybe?

---

sorry, as a new user it will not let me post the link

Enforcing England and Wales judgments abroad

If you have obtained a judgment or court order, you will want to enforce it in a jurisdiction where the judgment debtor has assets or is located. Methods of enforcing abroad depend largely on the nature of the judgment or order and where it is to be enforced.
Countries can conveniently be split into one or more of four categories which, in descending order of ease and convenience, are:

• countries to which the European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulation applies;
• countries which have signed the Brussels Regulation or the Lugano Convention;
• countries with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement in place; - applies in my case
• countries for which none of the above apply - notably the USA, Japan and China.

It may also be out of date - April 2013

---

I'm no expert on this as it is the first time I have been in the position.
All very confusing

What, for £100?

Never heard of any such case. I doubt many knuckledraggers would understand any of that! And big words like 'reciprocal', nah!

Grimble

Lot of research there, you missed the obvious point, if they were daft enough to issue a small claim, all the person abroad ticks on the form is out of jurisdiction therefore no claim will get before the court in the first place.

Fruitcake

Grimble wrote: »

Lot of research there, you missed the obvious point, if they were daft enough to issue a small claim, all the person abroad ticks on the form is out of jurisdiction therefore no claim will get before the court in the first place.

The main wrinkle here is that this was a hire car, so all the research is aimed at trying to ensure the Hire Co do not pay the charge.

Not so Smart have no chance of getting any money out of the OP, but may try it on with the Hire Co.

That's why we have advised the OP to warn Not so Smart about the keeper being a non-UK resident, and that now they know the identity of the keeper/hirer, they must not try to transfer liability back to the Hire Co.

OP, it might be worth writing to the Hire Co that since the scammers now know the identity of the hirer/keeper at date of event, they, the Hire Co, are no longer liable and MUST NOT pay this charge.
Point them in the direction of Para 13 of the POFA 2012 as a precaution.

JSY

I was just curious as to where the law stood on these things outside of the UK, hence the research.

Obviously this would be relating to a much larger claim, greater than that of the £100 issued for them to entertain the idea of pursuing someone to these lengths.

Knowledge is power, as they say....

JSY

Fruitcake wrote: »

The main wrinkle here is that this was a hire car, so all the research is aimed at trying to ensure the Hire Co do not pay the charge.

Not so Smart have no chance of getting any money out of the OP, but may try it on with the Hire Co.

That's why we have advised the OP to warn Not so Smart about the keeper being a non-UK resident, and that now they know the identity of the keeper/hirer, they must not try to transfer liability back to the Hire Co.

Have done this in my appeal to Smart P. and also advised the Hire Co I will deal with it direct and for them not to pay it.

Hire co confirmed they would not pay it and liability is solely with me now.

Hoping to get the cancelation confirmation so I can then claim back the £40 admin fee they have invoiced, but have reiterated that I continue to dispute this charge and want copies of all my personal data held and used for this scenario, and what processes/procedures have been followed - making them do a bit of work in the meantime

Fruitcake

OK, that's good then as long as you have the statement in writing from the Hire Co.

Umkomaas

JSY wrote: »

I was just curious as to where the law stood on these things outside of the UK, hence the research.

Obviously this would be relating to a much larger claim, greater than that of the £100 issued for them to entertain the idea of pursuing someone to these lengths.

Knowledge is power, as they say....

What ballpark figure are you thinking might be in play?