Thread: PPC citing Pre Action Protocols to get me to give driver details

Further to my previous post (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-required.html), I wrote a letter to the PPC asking them to either substantiate their claim that I (as registered keeper) am under an obligation to provide them with driver details or alternatively to provide evidence that I was the driver myself.
I received the following from them a few days later:

"We pursue this matter through Civil Contract Law and as such we request driver details in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocols. We would like to draw your attention back to the Pre-Action Protocols, in particular Civil Procedure Rule 31.18.2 which provides that any person not directly party to the wrongdoing may incur no personal liability, but comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. This is called the Norwich Pharmacal Principle and can be directly applied to the current situation.
We enclose photographs of the above vehicle entering and leaving the site. The cameras which monitor the carpark are not designed to take photos of the driver." They then go on to say that I have to pay them £60 or give them driver details by x date or the charge will be £100 and possible court proceedings.

Now even if I was desperate to co-operate and wanted to give them driver details, I can't actually remember who was in charge of the car at the time, since they didn't leave a notice on the car and didn't contact me until 2-3 weeks later. What I really need to know is whether this "duty" they refer to is actually a legal obligation, and what action they would be able to take against me if I continue to tell them that I cannot give them driver details.
Thanks to anyone who can offer advice, I appreciate all assistance, but please try and stick to the legal position rather than just saying the PPC is talking rubbish...I need something concrete I can throw back at them if they try to take me to court!

As a matter of interest what would constitute 'wrong doing'

As the PPC is a third party and as such have not suffered a direct loss AND the fact that no criminality has occured then a ''wrong doing'' has not occured and thus would not come under the civil proceedure rules.

Is this a Perky one ? On planet Perky Norwich Pharmacal orders are in vogue. On earth its a different story. Equally their opinion of the Pre-Action Protocols is drivel. Don't say anymore about the details of what happened - either in a post here or in any PM to anyone. Some PPCs love to use forums to trap people and it has been known for PPCs to pose as 'helpers'. Looks like many violations of The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 No. in their letters. Perky hasn't got his head around those yet by the looks of things. But as he can't get his head around CPR or Norwich Orders what do you expect ? His in-house 'legal team' seem to be letting him down badly in my opinion. Cease all communication with the PPC. Keep all their letters in safe keeping.