Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
252 replies 30.1K views
pinnygigpinnygig Forumite
8 Posts
edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
Hi
I had an invoice from Civil Enforcements because my car had been parked in a car park longer than it was allowed. I knew that I was not using the vehicle on that day and using a template from this website I wrote and told them that although I was the owner of the vehicle I was not the driver on that day.

Their reponse is,

We reject your assertion that this is harassment. We are contacting you to collect a payment that is valid and outstanding.

Although you state that you were not the driver, as registered keeper you have the necessary information about the identity and contact details of the driver to enable us to recover the amount due from that driver. We therefore require you to provide us with the name and address of the driver within the next seven days.

If you were not the driver at the relevant time, and you do not provide us with the requested details (or give false information) we will issue court proceedings against you seeking and order compelling you to disclose the requested information. It is quite widely(but wrongly) believed registered keepers cannot be compelled to disclose information of this nature if a car park is operated on private land. The relevant court order is called a Norwich Pharmacal Order. We will seek an order against you if you do not furnish us with the true details.

etc etc

Does anyone have any advice or experience of this as I have not seen mentioned on any forums

Thanks
«13456726

Replies

  • edited 20 June 2011 at 10:39AM
    esmerobboesmerobbo Forumite
    5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 20 June 2011 at 10:39AM
    Norwich Pharmacal order has been widely discussed here!

    You should never have contacted them as this is the sort of crap they come out with. However what they forget to mention is that a Norwich Pharmacal order would cost them hundreds if not thousands of pounds to obtain which is not recoverable.

    You are under no obligation to furnish the driver details. It would be best now to ignore these idiots.

    A Quick Google!

    In what circumstances is a Norwich Pharmacal Order granted?

    For a third party to be liable to present the information requested by the claimant, they must have been involved, innocently or not, in the wrongdoing against the claimant. It must also be clear that justice will be served by the revelation of this information.

    To clarify, there are four elements that the claimant must demonstrate to be granted an NPO:

    1 It is in the interest of justice
    2 Action is not possible without the third party's information
    3 The third party is not just a witness, but is actually involved in the wrongdoing
    4 There exists a basis to suggest that a wrong has truly been committed.
  • ...The relevant court order is called a Norwich Pharmacal Order...

    Another empty threat.

    A Norwich Pharmacal Order is a fairly complex legal device sometimes used in high-value civil disputes.

    All the costs of the order must be paid by the person seeking it, and because it takes quite a bit of work by a specialist solicitor to prepare, these costs are hundreds, if not thousands.

    Courts granting these orders have to have regard to the amount in dispute, and in this case the amount is trivial.

    So even if they go to the expense of applying for an order, there's no guarantee it will be granted.

    Furthermore, you have the statutory defence of self-incrimination.

    The chances of any one of the above events happening is minimal, and there is no chance they all will.

    While it is tempting to write to these clowns to tell them where to go, I wouldn't bother.

    Ignore from now on is the best thing to do.
  • AlexisVAlexisV Forumite
    1.9K Posts
    If you've started to communicate with them, implore them to obtain such an order. Let's see their response.
  • CoblcrisCoblcris Forumite
    1.9K Posts
    What tosh !
    Speaking only for myself I would respond with "I accept your offer to issue court proceedings conditional upon papers being received within 14 days of receipt of this letter."
  • trisontanatrisontana Forumite
    9.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    And ask them how many of these orders they have taken out over parking tickets.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • alexisV and coblcris

    Are you serious??
  • trisontanatrisontana Forumite
    9.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    pinnygig wrote: »
    alexisV and coblcris

    Are you serious??

    Of course they are, why do you doubt them?
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • HO87HO87 Forumite
    4.3K Posts
    @pinnygig - I understand your reticence and it is perhaps only amongst the more experienced of us here that there is a degree of bravado. For myself I would be very tempted to reply to these jokers along the lines of:

    "I deny that any debt is owed to you or that any debt exists and will not enter into any further correspondence on the matter. Unless proceedings are commenced within the next 14 days I will consider the matter closed."

    And leave matters at that.

    Whilst they could apply for a NPO they also know that by doing so their overall costs will escalate (besides the cost of applying for such an Order) as by making such an application any case would come out of the fast-track small claims and into the full County Court. Given that their chances of winning their alleged breach of contract, in any event, are by no means guaranteed the chances of a PPC going down this route with all of the attendant risks - to them - are wafer thin at best IMO.

    As has already been pointed out such Orders are rarely sought and only in large, complex, often international cases involving substantial issues where the person with the information can be shown to have had some involvement and what they were asking the court to grant - by way of the NPO is proportionate and not a fishing expedition. Not only that, but the PPC would also have to show that they have a proprietary interest in the case and as the landowner's agent (at best) and perhaps more likely a contractor of a managing agent demonstrating that alone is likely to be interesting.

    Keep in mind also that the usual standard of cases presented to court by PPC's is generally poor they will have to up their game considerably to get a hearing for a NPO let alone win one.

    Several PPC's have thrown NPO's into the treat-mix over the last few years but none has so far dared to go for one. If it was the sure-fire method of obtaining information they are trying to persuade you it is then they would have chanced their arm by now. I suspect there are one or two of the more litigious PPC's who have probably run it by a tame solicitor or two but have dropped the idea when they were invited to insert the case into a very dark orifice.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
  • SirdanSirdan Forumite
    1.3K Posts
    pinnygig wrote: »
    alexisV and coblcris

    Are you serious??

    Of course they are serious , this is the truth that the Parking Companies,their Debt Collectors and Solicitors don't want the public to know.

    99.999999999999% of what they write is just bully boy bullsh1t.

    Norwich Pharmacal my !!!! ...there is no substantive record of ANY parking company wasting their time and money trying to get such an order ..it is simply not worth their effort .
    They are just trying to bully you into revealing information which you are NOT obliged to disclose.

    If you do as suggested and call their bluff ..NOTHING WILL HAPPEN !

    It is clear that they KNOW that without the driver details there is no one to claim against hence their pathetic attempt to get you to reveal the information.
    So no driver details = no court = sit back relax and ignore these morons.
    I personally have two final final warning letters for two such charges from Solicitors which state " be assured this matter will not go away without resolution or solution" that was in JANUARY !
    If they had a case why haven't they filed a claim,these cretins operate on lies,bluff and bullying ...and it works because some people still take them seriously and pay up.

    BEST ADVICE IGNORE TOTALLY ( unless you get court papers..you have more chance of winning the lottery twice)
  • SirdanSirdan Forumite
    1.3K Posts
    NeverAgain wrote: »
    ...The relevant court order is called a Norwich Pharmacal Order...

    Another empty threat.

    A Norwich Pharmacal Order is a fairly complex legal device sometimes used in high-value civil disputes.

    All the costs of the order must be paid by the person seeking it, and because it takes quite a bit of work by a specialist solicitor to prepare, these costs are hundreds, if not thousands.

    Courts granting these orders have to have regard to the amount in dispute, and in this case the amount is trivial.

    So even if they go to the expense of applying for an order, there's no guarantee it will be granted.

    Furthermore, you have the statutory defence of self-incrimination.

    The chances of any one of the above events happening is minimal, and there is no chance they all will.

    While it is tempting to write to these clowns to tell them where to go, I wouldn't bother.

    Ignore from now on is the best thing to do.


    Not the case statutory defence against self incrimination only applies to criminal cases not civil hearings.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Lloyds Bank wrongly declares customer dead

Account was closed due to a misreading

MSE News

Cheap home insurance

Grab 100+ buildings insurance quotes & cashback

MSE Guides

£12 for 1L Baileys

Available at Tesco, Morrisons & Asda

MSE Deals