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

[rosaespanola]

Further to my previous post (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/183999-registered-keeper-legally-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!

[flyingdoc]

all you need to do - (if you do anything at all ) is to write back and say that you do not have the information that they are requesting.

 

End of story.

 

Even under s172 of the rta the police cannot take action against you if you can prove reasonably that you CANNOT answer the question as opposed to WILL NOT answer.

 

This is a completely different situation. They have no legal recourse against you as you can honestly say - under oath in necessary - that you do not know who was driving.

[RichardM]

Utter and total drivel. (the letter, not your answer FlyingDoc)

 

If you really do want to give them an answer, simply refer them to CPR 31.1.2 and tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

31.1 Scope of this part.

(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.

 

(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

 

Of course,the most effective way is to file that letter and ignore them, knowing full well that you now know a biit more about the law than they appear to.

[nero12]

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.

[RichardM]

According to this document which was a briefing on how the judgement quoted by the PPC affected human rights issues

 

http://www.39essex.com/documents/JB_RDU_Norwich_Pharmacal_paper_060207.pdf

 

There is no restriction according to the legal nature of the wrongdoing. It may

be:

(1) a tort (Norwich Pharmacal (supra));

(2) a breach of contract; e.g. a contract of employment (Ashworth

Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (supra));

(3) a breach of confidence (e.g. British Steel v Granada Television Ltd

[1981] 1 AC 1096);

4

(4) a defamation; Totalise plc v The Motley Fool Ltd & Interactive

Investor Ltd [2001] EWHC (QB)

(5) a breach of statutory duty; e.g. breach of privacy under the Data

Protection Act 1989 (Hughes v Carratu International plc [2006]

EWHC 1791 (QB).

 

Of course, it's all immaterial unless the PPC wants to take the case beyond small claims, which would be very unlikely with the costs involved.

[lamma]

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.

[the_freedom_trail]

I think most people can skirt round this with a genuine lapse of memory

[the_freedom_trail]

Besides, the PPC have to prove that a contract even existed in the first place - just more hot air from them - they will tell you the sky is pink if they believe it will get you to pay their fanciful parking charges. Ignore them.