Thread: URGENT Parking firm taking me to court and demanding my insurance docs? WHAT!?????

Hi All

Well I recieved a ticket for parking by a private company Combined Parking Solutions of Wolverhampton. I followed the advice on here

Next thing I get are some court papers to fill in. So I filled it in saying I had not heard from them regards the letter and denying responsibility for parking there.

Now it's gone further to county court and a hearing set for September!!!!!

HELP!

I've just received a letter from them, it's long but well worth a read please and any advice of what to do very gratefully accepted!

Dear Mr
We have today received docs from C Court blah blah.

In accordance with the courts request all parties are encouraged to settle the case before the hearing.

We note the parking charge was issued on 13th and no appeal or payment had been received, a letter was sent to yourself on 25th advising payment was due and we did not receive any response within the 7 days requested.

The file shows a standard 'internet' response was received on 19th March, these responses are normally obtained from various internet forums in an attempt to escape liability for a parking charge - CCTV was reviewed as a result of this letter to confirm the statement made by the ticket issuer.

The CCTV clearly shows the vehicle parking and occupants walking off towards , we would suggest that an average person does not allow their vehicle to be used to transport children to a party/childrens play area without knowing who is driving and without ensuring adequate insurance is in place.

We therefore would request a copy of your insurance schedule in force on this date, in order to save costs and as this is a perfectly reasonable request we would ask this be forwarded without us having to make a request to the court (we would make the request under section 31.16 and 31.17 of the CPR).

Should you refuse this reasonable request we will make the request for this order and costs incurred to be added to the claim pursuant to rule 44.3 CPR

We would also add that you are formally put on notice that if you do not respond to this letter or choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative to treatthis silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination.

What do I do? Can they do this? As for the CCTV I have never seen it and they don't confirm for instance how many people? They say "children" BUT it was a child for starters so are they playing a game or what?

PLEASE HELP SOMEONE

Thanks

Similar Threads:

• Legal docs before Court Action
• No contents insurance and Neighbour taking me to court!
• help urgent advice needed debt collector taking me to court
• French driver; How to claim insurance from him/his firm
• Preparing docs for the court?

Firstly,

Please go over and visit PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justiceThe motorists legal advice forum. You are looking for the Parking and Decriminalised notices forum.

They have had long run ins with this company and have won against him many, many times.

Here is a thread that shows that these tickets don't stand up in court;

Perky/CPS DEFEATED in Court Today - FightBack Forums

and a thread where they have already picked up on your case;

Perky Demands Insurance Details - FightBack Forums

These Pepipoo guys really know what they are doing. It should be your first stop. I'm sure they'll take great pleasure in doing these [problem] artists over again!!

P.S. It's free to register and use Pepipoo!!!

DT

Whoaa typeratlast! Don't Panic! as the book says. Nobody can demand to see your insurance documents unless they are the police or the post office/tax office on vehicle taxation. Not even in case of an accident where you should exchange insurance details ie name and address of respective insurers. The only exception is production via a court order.

Sections 31.16 and 31.17 of the Civil Procedure rules only allow for an application to be made to the court under the rules of disclosure. The disclosure procedure is there to ensure that both parties are given fair access to documents the other side intends to use in court so that examination can take place well before a court case is finally heard. Disclosure isn't something that takes place in the early part of any claim.

I agree with lamma that it is likely to be a very shallow threat to what appears to be a ruse to obtain privlieged information about you. Let the claimant make an application to the court at a cost of £75 and then let him try to convince a judge as to why insurance details have any relevance to a parking ticket. An insurance certificate won't necessarily name either the driver or the registered keeper. I could have parked your car under my insurance cover.

It's highly unlikely that Sir will grant an order in such obtuse circumstances. He might just as well ask you in court whether it was you who parked the car.

Originally Posted by typeratlast

Hi All
Now it's gone further to county court and a hearing set for September!!!!!

HELP!

Don't panic. There is plenty of advice for dealing with Perky and his mob. Be aware that they do lurk and read whats going on these threads. Be very careful about what you say as they will try and identify you from the posts.

First up lets examine the letter

We have today received docs from C Court blah blah.

In accordance with the courts request all parties are encouraged to settle the case before the hearing.

Quite right to. Nothing wrong in that. So why are they making a frivilious claim against the RK and not the driver.

We note the parking charge was issued on 13th and no appeal or payment had been received, a letter was sent to yourself on 25th advising payment was due and we did not receive any response within the 7 days requested.

you are not obliged to pay or appeal.

The file shows a standard 'internet' response was received on 19th March, these responses are normally obtained from various internet forums in an attempt to escape liability for a parking charge - CCTV was reviewed as a result of this letter to confirm the statement made by the ticket issuer.

What is a standard "internet" response? These responses are not an attempt to escape liability but rather a request for them to substantiate a claim of debt.

The CCTV clearly shows the vehicle parking and occupants walking off towards , we would suggest that an average person does not allow their vehicle to be used to transport children to a party/childrens play area without knowing who is driving and without ensuring adequate insurance is in place.

So what. That's their opinion and they are entitled to it. You could say that the vehicle was insured but you also don't have to tell them who was driving. If they want to make a complaint that someone was driving without insurance thats a criminal matter and they should be talking to the police. They need to be very careful about accusations like that - it can be deemed defamation of character if its proved to be false.

It's a civil case the onus of proof is on them. And they still haven't identified the driver.

We therefore would request a copy of your insurance schedule in force on this date, in order to save costs and as this is a perfectly reasonable request we would ask this be forwarded without us having to make a request to the court (we would make the request under section 31.16 and 31.17 of the CPR).

Civil Procedure Rules. If this is being heard in the small claims track then the rules aren't in the scope of CPR 31.16 and 31.17

This is an intrusion into your privacy. The only people who can request to see your private documents are the Police and the Post Office for Road Tax and of course your insurer who are privy to the agreement in the first place.

Reasonable request. I don't think so. Argue it is a private matter between you and your insurer.

As Fair Parking has said the CPR quote its for documents that will actually be used by the other party in court. If you don't intend to use then they can go swivel. The relevance of insurance in civil claim for parking is highly debatable.

Should you refuse this reasonable request we will make the request for this order and costs incurred to be added to the claim pursuant to rule 44.3 CPR

Reasonable don't make me laugh. They need to FOAD.

We would also add that you are formally put on notice that if you do not respond to this letter or choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative to treatthis silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination.

They can try this Novel approach. Unfortunately under the law as it stands nothing a private individual or company does can compel to give them the information about the driver. They are not the Police. They might infer your silence as self incrimination but you could equally use that expression so favoured by the Americans of neither confirming or denying anything - Under civil law no further inference can be given. If it was a criminal case then the rules are different but this is a civil claim.

Ask them to provide statute reference compelling you to tell them who the driver was.

Do not send a copy of your insurance policy to the CPS bunch, as previously mentioned, the only people who can lawfully request to see your insurance documents is

A police officer WHILST in uniform (not plain clothes).
A HMR&C officer performing duty excise duties.

The Post Office and DVLA is no longer an "authorised person" under the RTA 1984, as the MID should inform the DVLA that the vehicle has valid insurance, and this wil be printed on the tax reminder that insurance is not required, same for MOT. (Special rules still do exist for them to require the document for examination, but very few reasons excempt them)

Perky & Co. (Combined Parking Solutions) are phishing, to see if any one else is insured to drive your vehicle, as CPs know that the Registered Keeper can not be held to "contract", nor can CPS ask you to supply the drivers details, again only the Chief Officer of Police or Chief Constable has that authority.

It would Perky & Co. are trying a new tactic in obtaining driver information, shame this wouldn't work.

Especially if it was a company vehicle as the policy is most likely to say "Any Person Employed by Policy Holder and holds a licence for that vehicle classifcation"

Also, for a private vehicle, any person insured fully comp would be allowed to drive and have third party cover.

Perky, Try another tactic, it wont work, but very good attempt.

The file shows a standard 'internet' response was received on 19th March, these responses are normally obtained from various internet forums in an attempt to escape liability for a parking charge

Forgot to mention. If you look at the profile of Perky88, the alter ego of one of the principals of CPS you'll see that he "Dislike know it alls, without any real life experiences to back it up"

IMO he can't stand the fact that these internet responses i.e. the template letters (based on other peoples experiences and knowledge) damage his flawed business model.

I wouldn't say that I am a know it all, far from the truth, but I would say I have the experience, and several years experience too.

His business model is severely flawed, as is the vast majority of other private parking companies/contrators. Wonder if the business managers at the local banks know how flawed these business models are?

And if Perky & Co. thought the business model was safe and had no doubts about the legality then why would such company have the need or even desire to troll internet forums trying to find out if the victim wasn't seeking advice. The reason? Because these cowboys are worried, and should be worried too *mutters to himself*. A sound and successful business shouldn't need to spend time trolling internet forums trying to get a heads up on a possible defence.

Anyway, we're going off topic from the original post.