To pay or not to pay a PCN- the scary advice I got

[Old Cogger]

Blimey - I missed the oportunity to make a fortune from Threatogram production and copyright them years ago, wonder how much I would of made after all this time?

[andydd]

Yes, lets have a few examples.

 

Ok, heres one from a few days ago. > http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?353729-Facing-cowboy-clampers-in-court-tomorrow&p=3875335#post3875335

 

I didnt mean just parking cases, but even us admins will admit there have been threads where posters havnt neccasarily been given wrong advice but outcomes in court were not in their favour despite (normally good and correct) advice given out, this may well be because judges often reach contradictory decisions.

 

Another 'well known' case is regrading a caravan sold on ebay, where a judge decided against the poster and this left many at CAG very surprised at the outcome.

 

Andy

[DBC]

But I can equally point you to several cases where the motorist has won. Even when they have lost ( as in a recent Parking Eye case), all the judge awarded was £15 ( the cost of 2 P&D tickets) and not the hundreds of pounds which PE were demanding. After the recent VAT ruling and the case in S****horpe (which VCS lost) I would think that even fewer cases will get to court.

[andydd]

But I can equally point you to several cases where the motorist has won. Even when they have lost ( as in a recent Parking Eye case), all the judge awarded was £15 ( the cost of 2 P&D tickets) and not the hundreds of pounds which PE were demanding. After the recent VAT ruling and the case in S****horpe (which VCS lost) I would think that even fewer cases will get to court.

 

I dont disgagree with you, I'm just pointing out that despite popular assumption, parking companies do not always lose in court, there is a prescedent in arthur v anker that they can reply upon.

 

Of course, you are correct, that in most cases, parking companies do not start court action...BUT if they do, they do have a 50/50 chance of winning (this prob depends on circumtsances).

 

I'm just being devils advocate here and pointing out that its not a black and white case of simply saying ignore demands because parking companies never win...unfortunatly the poster in the thread I linked found out the hard way (although IMO his defence did seem rather weak).

 

Andy

[DBC]

What's not made clear in those cases which PPCs have won is the number that were uncontested and were won by default ( i.e , the defendant didn't show up or didn't respond to the court paperwork) In most cases, with a good defence, then the case is winnable by the motorist.

[Jamberson]

I thought you said that people ignored parking charge notices, were taken to court and then lost the case. That's what you said in post 42.

 

What relevance has someone suing the parking company for the return of a clamping fee got? Or a court case over an Ebay purchase?

 

Everyone knows there are court cases in the world - give us some examples where someone has ignored a parking charge and been sued and lost.

[DBC]

From post#42:-

 

unfortunately there are numerous cases where parking companies have taken people to court and won,

 

Could you please define what you mean by "numerous"?

[andydd]

Well..if we use the above statistics..

 

Number of those which proceeded to a hearing in front of a Judge = 49

 

Number of above resulting in award to Claimant = 24

 

 

Then theres 25 cases where it would appear the parking company has won (obvioulsy these are CC claims which generally arnt reported and transcripts are only available if theyve been requested or if the case is appealed to high court, the afformentioned Arthur and Vine cases being examples.)

 

I'm not on here to argue further, I dont agree with parking charges, im just pointing out that case law does imply that parking companies do have a legal basis to claim their charges, of course there are also many legal basis to argue against them (the Vine case being that the parker simply did not see the signs being a very good example).

 

Andy

[DBC]

But how many of these so-called "numerous" cases have been reported on CAG?. You seem to be making a sweeping statement without having the figures to back it up.

 

As for those so-called "charges", most of them would be deemed an unfair penalty because they do not represent the actual loss suffered by the landowner. So there is no "legal basis" for the PPC to use in their claim.

[andydd]

But how many of these so-called "numerous" cases have been reported on CAG?. You seem to be making a sweeping statement without having the figures to back it up.

 

As for those so-called "charges", most of them would be deemed an unfair penalty because they do not represent the actual loss suffered by the landowner. So there is no "legal basis" for the PPC to use in their claim.

 

I dont see the relevnace of whether cases have been reported on at CAG, Im using the figures printed above where it would appear that in court, just over 50% of parking companies were succesful.

 

There clearly IS a legal basis for the claims (as per Arthur v Ankar), you appear to be arguing about the amount of the claim which is something a bit different, clearly a charge in the high hundreds would be above the actual loss suffered by a landowner, but I blieve that if put before a judge, if the signage was adequate AND the charge was less than £100 then a judge may well decide in favour of a parking company unless there is some other evidence/compelling reason why not.

 

Andy

[DBC]

You mean like the £15 awarded to Parking Eye for two unpaid P&D tickets?

[Jamberson]

I dont see the relevnace of whether cases have been reported on at CAG,

 

It's relevant because you specifically said:

 

"The CAG forum is full of similar threads where contributors tell posters advice normally along the lines of just ignore which usually works out well but sometimes does result in court action where the poster loses and is some what annoyed by the advice given."

 

I think you've edited the original comment, but it's still there in the section I quoted back to you on page 3, and it's what started this debate.

 

The fact is, people never take the ignore advice but then get sued and lose - I've never heard it happen, so please don't advise people it does!

 

Sure there are a few cases where parking companies have come out winners - but the cases will not have been defended, or they were defended wrongly, or they were show cases etc. The ignore advice is as close to 100% sound as you will get.

 

So - ignore and ignore again.

[andydd]

I stick by my original comments that there have been threads where despite the best advice given by CAG that on occasions cases have gone to court and the OP/Cagger has lost, as great as CAG is..we cant be 100% right all the time !...there have been parking cases and cases involving other aspects such as credit card loans, etc

 

I personally think the best advice is to try and follow the guidelines in the CPR Pre Action Protocol, youve then covered yourself in the unlikely case it should progress to court and you could show the judge youve followed all the suggested guidelines, I dont believe a blanket 'ignore' is always the correct way forward.

 

I dont believe your last paragraph is quite correct, i posted a very recent case where a parking company won, it was defended and the poster did produce a defence with photos, eividence , etc which i dont think was 'wrong' although perhaps could of been a bit stronger. I have also refered you to Arthur v Ankar this was well defended in both county and high court but the parking company did win on both occasions (although admitilly the later case of Vine does introduce some new elements such as 'did the driver actually see the signs' ?)

 

Andy

[DBC]

Everyone on the CAG site team don't seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. For instance dx100uk just says "ignore". At least be consistent with your advice.

[Michael Browne]

Everyone on the CAG site team don't seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. For instance dx100uk just says "ignore". At least be consistent with your advice.

 

dx100uk advise ignore. Andydd and Bankfodder advise deny the debt. I don't think either is wrong as such, just different appraoches to the same problem. The advice common to both is don't pay, which is the most important thing.

[Jamberson]

There is no case at all to my knowledge where anyone has come on here, been advised to ignore, and then got sued and lost.

 

Yes, there are other types of court cases about things other than parking charges, but they are of no relevance. Parking charges are unenforceable - other things are not.

 

The most important thing is that the OP isn't persuaded to send them a cheque for anything - "costs" or whatever. If he ignores, nothing will happen. And there are no "suggested guidelines" to show to this hypothetical judge.

[dontwannaberippedoff]

Where can I find the guidelines in the CPR Pre Action Protocol that you mention please?

[Jamberson]

There are no guidelines. If there is a single document anywhere in the world with guidleines on how to deal with unenforceable speculative invoices, I'll eat my hat.

[dontwannaberippedoff]

Oh, in that case I do not understand what andydd is referring to in comment #63 ....I personally think the best advice is to try and follow the guidelines in the CPR Pre Action Protocol, youve then covered yourself in the unlikely case it should progress to court and you could show the judge youve followed all the suggested guidelines, I dont believe a blanket 'ignore' is always the correct way forward.

[Jamberson]

Perhaps he'll reveal all?

[Michael Browne]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

[andydd]

There ya go, thanks Michael, Annex A is the list of procedures both sides are 'supposed' to follow in any kind of dispute before starting legal action, i say 'supposed' becuase in my exopereience, courts dont really seem to care although in theory they should ask if both sides have followed it and possibly impose sanctions/costs if not.

 

If followed properally both sides are supposed to layout their case and defence and evidence, so in effect giving you a sneak peak of their case befiore legal action, you could then decide to do nothing, pay up or prepare to defend, but as I said it isnt really used much and courts should do a lot more to force people to use it and or mediation.

 

In my opinion, it is a better route (if legal action is possible) to do your best to try and follow the Pre-Action Protocols just to at the very least try and show the court youve made an effort..............I believe this is better than a blanket 'ignore' policy but each to his own.

 

Andy

[DBC]

But surely the above would only apply in the the unlikely event that the PPC issues court papers. I would have thought that you don't have to go through all that rigmarole when you receive speculative invoices.These you can ignore. As has been said on here many times, the only time you have to take things seriously and start responding is if you receive properly stamped court papers.Before that happens you don't have to do anything.

Edited June 26, 2012 by DBC

[Jamberson]

These directions are generalised guidleines where there is a prospect of a court case. There is no court case in the offing here. If there was, both parties should swap notes and have civil dialogue with each other - that's all.

 

They have no relevance to this situation. No debt exists. No laws have been broken. No proceedings have been commenced.

[andydd]

But surely the above would only apply in the the unlikely event that the PPC issues court papers. I would have thought that you don't have to go through all that rigmarole when you receive speculative invoices.These you can ignore. As has been said on here many times, the only time you have to take things seriously and start responding is if you receive properly stamped court papers.Before that happens you don't have to do anything.

 

Well..its supposed to be followed pre-action, in fact, the parking company should really be following it in their original demand, instead of just saying..'you owe us £xx' they should say you owe us £xx because of blah, blah, the case law is blah, the evidence we will rely on is blah.

 

Of course they don't follow the protocol at all, like most just debt collectors, they just send vague demands and rarely spell out what legal right they have to demand the money from you.

 

If you read other threads here you will see thjat civil recovery firms such as RLP do tend to follow the protocol roure to an extent although they appear to follow it, not in an attempt to reach an agreement but simply to scare the otyher side into paying, which isnt its intention at all.

 

Andy