Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    pinnygig
    Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order
    • #1
    • 20th Jun 11, 9:18 AM
    Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order 20th Jun 11 at 9:18 AM
    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
Page 1
    • esmerobbo
    • By esmerobbo 20th Jun 11, 9:27 AM
    • 4,742 Posts
    • 6,216 Thanks
    esmerobbo
    • #2
    • 20th Jun 11, 9:27 AM
    • #2
    • 20th Jun 11, 9:27 AM
    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.
    Last edited by esmerobbo; 20-06-2011 at 9:39 AM.
  • NeverAgain
    • #3
    • 20th Jun 11, 9:36 AM
    • #3
    • 20th Jun 11, 9:36 AM
    ...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.
  • AlexisV
    • #4
    • 20th Jun 11, 10:25 AM
    • #4
    • 20th Jun 11, 10:25 AM
    If you've started to communicate with them, implore them to obtain such an order. Let's see their response.
  • Coblcris
    • #5
    • 20th Jun 11, 10:39 AM
    • #5
    • 20th Jun 11, 10:39 AM
    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."
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 20th Jun 11, 10:53 AM
    • 9,025 Posts
    • 13,960 Thanks
    trisontana
    • #6
    • 20th Jun 11, 10:53 AM
    • #6
    • 20th Jun 11, 10:53 AM
    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?
  • pinnygig
    • #7
    • 20th Jun 11, 11:11 AM
    • #7
    • 20th Jun 11, 11:11 AM
    alexisV and coblcris

    Are you serious??
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 20th Jun 11, 11:16 AM
    • 9,025 Posts
    • 13,960 Thanks
    trisontana
    • #8
    • 20th Jun 11, 11:16 AM
    • #8
    • 20th Jun 11, 11:16 AM
    alexisV and coblcris

    Are you serious??
    Originally posted by pinnygig
    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?
    • HO87
    • By HO87 20th Jun 11, 12:28 PM
    • 4,186 Posts
    • 7,514 Thanks
    HO87
    • #9
    • 20th Jun 11, 12:28 PM
    • #9
    • 20th Jun 11, 12:28 PM
    @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
  • Sirdan
    alexisV and coblcris

    Are you serious??
    Originally posted by pinnygig
    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)
  • Sirdan
    ...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.
    Originally posted by NeverAgain

    Not the case statutory defence against self incrimination only applies to criminal cases not civil hearings.
  • NeverAgain
    ...Not the case statutory defence against self incrimination only applies to criminal cases not civil hearings...

    http://ld.practicallaw.com/0-211-3137

    Quoting: "The respondent may be able to refuse to provide the information on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination."

    Several other legal websites say the same thing.
  • Sirdan
    ...Not the case statutory defence against self incrimination only applies to criminal cases not civil hearings...

    http://ld.practicallaw.com/0-211-3137

    Quoting: "The respondent may be able to refuse to provide the information on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination."

    Several other legal websites say the same thing.
    Originally posted by NeverAgain
    Somewhat misleading what it should say is this
    "Privilege against self-incrimination exempts a person from being compelled to produce documents or provide information which might incriminate him in any potential or current criminal proceedings in England and Wales. "

    The key word being criminal -PPC claims are as we know very much a civil matter. So if a PPC sought a NPO re their claim the matter of self incrimination is not relevant.
  • Coblcris
    Serious as a heart attack.

    However HO87 sums up my approach nicely.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jun 11, 7:15 PM
    • 70,253 Posts
    • 82,858 Thanks
    Coupon-mad

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

    Thanks
    Originally posted by pinnygig



    I have!

    Google search for 'Norwich Pharmacal parking'

    Lots and lots of forum posts, all saying the same.

    Ignore their desperate drivel and stop writing back to them unless you are of the mindset to write and say 'bring it on!'
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • BarryW
    Dear Civil Enforcement

    I am sitting in the smallest room in the house and I have your letter in front of me. Very soon it will be behind me.

    That should suffice.
  • Driver8
    PRIVATE PARKING TICKETS - DON'T PAY!
    IT IS NOT A FINE! YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL!

    This is an information page for the thousands of people who receive "tickets" from private companies in the UK ever day at supermarkets, retail parks, and in any other privately-owned carpark.

    We are NOT encouraging anybody to openly flout parking restrictions on private land, or to refuse to pay reasonable charges for parking. Landowners have a right to make reasonable charges for the use of their land.

    For advice specific to your case, you should visit the forums at http://forums.pepipoo.com or http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

    1. What you should know about these companies

    It is important to remember that private parking companies (or PPCs as they are often called) have NO OFFICIAL POWERS - that's right, none at all! They give out their "tickets" on the basis that you have seen the signs in their car park and that you have therefore agreed to a contract obliging you to pay a certain sum of money.


    2. What happens to people who don't pay?

    In 99.9% of cases, absolutely NOTHING! The company pays the DVLA 2.50 to get your address, and then sends lots of threatening letters. In the main, these letters can be safely IGNORED. The only way the company can actually force you to pay is by taking you to the small claims court, which costs them even more money. And they are by no means guaranteed to win! And they practically never do.

    The two main reasons for this (among others) are the following:

    - Only the person DRIVING the car could ever have agreed to any such parking contract. The company can only get the Registered Keeper's address from the DVLA: you don't have to tell them who was driving.

    -Many of these charges are so extortionately high that they constitute a penalty, which is unenforceable in a consumer contract.


    3. Can they affect my credit rating?

    NO! The only way your credit rating could be affected by ignoring private parking companies is if you were taken to court, lost, and then still refused to pay. But they will not take you to court.


    IN SHORT

    The vast majority of the time, you can safely IGNORE tickets from private parking companies, they are not official fines.

    The vast majority of the time, you can safely IGNORE the threatening letters, including those from debt collection agencies.

    You DO NOT have to pay a penny of your hard-earned money to these companies. Remember that the chances of being taken to court are very slim indeed.

    DO NOT IGNORE COURT PAPERS!
    If you receive real court papers from a private parking company (very rare) then you should go to http://forums.pepipoo.com or http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences for help defending the claim. Do not be afraid to sign up and ask questions regarding any paperwork you are not sure about.



    Don’t believe the above? Watch a solicitor on Watchdog advising you what to do with the scam invoices.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

    THEY ARE NOT FINES

    Only the Police, Courts or Council’s can fine you. NOT a private company, please remember that.
  • pinnygig
    thanks to everyone for your advice etc I will stand my ground.
    xxx
  • vax2002
    Now you know what happens when you contact them.
    Welcome to the hooked fish list.
  • NeverAgain
    ...Somewhat misleading what it should say is this: "Privilege against self-incrimination exempts a person from being compelled to produce documents or provide information which might incriminate him in any potential or current criminal proceedings in England and Wales. "...

    Sirdan,

    That is only a commentary.

    The wording of section 14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, says privilege applies to 'proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty'.

    I would suggest the latter applies here, although I accept the term 'offence' suggests a criminal offence rather than a civil dispute.

    Things get a bit more complicated when you consider something such as a copyright dispute which may be dealt with either in the civil court or as a criminal matter, but under the same legislation.

    In any event, I wonder if the person claiming privilege has to specify which offence he's worried about.

    And it could apply, or be said to apply, in a parking matter.

    "I am not going to reveal who was driving because the driver had no licence and I fear he or she may be prosecuted for that."

    Here's a quote from another legal website - which I fully accept says privilege applies in criminal proceedings.

    But that is only their commentary.

    The basic position under English law: The privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings is recognised as a basic freedom under English common law.
    It is restated in section 14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 as: "The right of a person in any legal proceedings other than criminal proceedings to refuse to answer any question or produce any document or thing if to do so would tend to expose that person to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty."

    http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=227266
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,913Posts Today

7,158Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin