Vexatious Litigation

D_P_Dance

As a founder member of "WHICH"  I am a very concerned consumer, and it appears to me that some of the cases taken to court by PPCs come close to being vexatius, especially "own space", "leaving site", and "double dipping", and bye law cases. when PPCs have been fully informed of the circumstances.

If this a road down which to travel, what do others think?

95Rollers

I think you've got something there. In my own case I was double dipped, but still got PCN'd. I didn't engage with them as I knew I'd done nothing wrong and they should check each ANPR hit with due diligence before send out PCNs or initiate legal action.  I personally believe they deliberately choose not to, because it would smash their cases apart so choose to enjoy blissful ignorance and dump the burden of proof on the motorists which is wrong. In my case when asking for my ANPR data on my SAR I was outright refused. Refused my own Data on the grounds that it would foil their attempts of Taxing me out of my own money they have no lawful entitlement to. By doing this they'll expose their scam. But the BPA will do nothing nor any of the authorities.  I've got ideas though.

bargepole

The MoJ have a list of Vexatious Litigants, that is people who have frequently filed meritless claims, and are banned from filing further claims without Judicial permission: Vexatious litigants - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

However, there is a very high bar to clear in order for anyone to be added to that list. The Courts will usually rule that a party must first be the subject of a Civil Restraint Order, which is an Order barring them from filing Claims or Applications in one particular Court. In order for one of those to be granted, the other party making the application has to show that at least two claims were made, which were ruled to be ;completely without merit'.

The problem is, that the PPCs will point to similar claims which were awarded in their favour, either because the Defendant was a complete muppet, or didn't bother turning up. So I don't think this idea will fly.

go-on-then

One that really gets me is the  ' No return within a certain time frame '  nonsense.   Entrapment supreme. 

As well as detrimental to retailers,  the ridiculous ruling is often well hidden on signage and oblivious motorists are victim to entrapment as they are unaware until they actually return to site.

Umkomaas

go-on-then said:

One that really gets me is the  ' No return within a certain time frame '  nonsense.   Entrapment supreme. 

As well as detrimental to retailers,  the ridiculous ruling is often well hidden on signage and oblivious motorists are victim to entrapment as they are unaware until they actually return to site.

And should you drive in first, then your partner later drives in within the verboten window, both admitting to driving, who is liable, you, your partner, both, neither?  

Sort that out Rumpole!

D_P_Dance

An Mp last year in the HoC expressed an opinion that such a oprovision in a contract may be in breach of the human Rights Act.  It could certainly be regarded as an unfair term.  

bargepole

Umkomaas said:

go-on-then said:

One that really gets me is the  ' No return within a certain time frame '  nonsense.   Entrapment supreme. 

As well as detrimental to retailers,  the ridiculous ruling is often well hidden on signage and oblivious motorists are victim to entrapment as they are unaware until they actually return to site.

And should you drive in first, then your partner later drives in within the verboten window, both admitting to driving, who is liable, you, your partner, both, neither?  

Sort that out Rumpole!

Simple.

I've never known of a 'no return' clause to be the subject of a court claim, but if it was, the following paragraphs should be included in the Defence:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the keeper of the vehicle, and was the driver on the first occasion when the vehicle was parked at 11.13am. The Claimant's signage states 'no return within 2 hours', and the Defendant did not return within 2 hours, or at all. The Defendant did not, therefore, breach this contractual term.

3. On the second occasion when the vehicle was parked, at 12:21pm, the vehicle was driven by the Defendant's wife, who is insured to drive the vehicle under the Defendant's insurance policy. As she had not been a party to the contract formed by signage with the Defendant, she was also not in breach of the terms. Consequently, there was no breach of any terms by either the Defendant or another driver, and the Claimant has no cause of action in this matter.

95Rollers

I guess the problem is proving the carparking companies Intent which if put on the spot for will blame on staff incompetence to absolve themselves of any blame. It would be easier to prove with smaller companies than big ones like UKPC etc.  All the orders will cascaded down verbally and nowhere in written or digital recordings. Even if it was the Seniors at the top would deny all knowledge and the buck would stop at those sending the order who would be written off as an "over zealous Rogue employee" who has conveniently left the company. Thats what happened when UKPS were found yo be fabricating digital evidence.  The staff and company should of been prosecuted for Fraud and False Accounting and any other offences. 

Averagestrawb

Imo so many PPC claims are vexatious, but proving it is almost impossible.