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

[Jamberson]

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.

 

Maybe they have no intention of going anywhere near a court? Just an idea...

[andydd]

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.

 

I disagree, it has relevance to all kinds of disputes where court action is a possibiltty but not a certainty, its aim is to try and avoid court action if at all possible, but It doesnt appear to be used that much and in my opinion judges rarely even refer to it.

 

Andy

[Jamberson]

But surely you mean a realistic possibility. If you step on someone's toe in a shop - do you start exchanging names and addresses? Do you offer them a token amount to cover the preparation of their documents?

 

You have to take a realistic view of a situation, and in these cases, it is simply not worth considering the prospect of being sued.

[andydd]

At early stages of disputes you have no idea about how 'realistic' the claim is and the possibilty of eventual court action, I re-iterate that parking companies have taken cases to court and have won, whilst these numbers maybe small they are a possibilty and unlike many other dubious demands/claims there is case law to rely upon (which is very important).

 

I dont think your 'toe' analogy is that helpful, BUT if you were involved in an accident in a shop where someone was injured and did send you paperwork indicating legal action then yes, the protocol might be a good way to proceed, in fact, in 'injury' cases there is a complete specialist protocol.

 

Andy

[Jamberson]

At early stages of disputes you have no idea about how 'realistic' the claim is

 

OK. Let's get down to basics then.

 

If they were to sue someone, who would it be? How do they know who parked the car and contravened the rules? That's the person they would have to name in their claim. They can't just sue anyone they fancy - so who will they be suing?

[andydd]

They would sue the driver at the time of the incident, and yes, Im well aware that this may be difficult to prove, as DVLA can only supply the registered owners details...and this is clearly one possible defence. However there have been cases where a judge has decided on the balance of probabilities (the standard required in the civil court) that the defendant/owner was indeed the driver at the time of the incident.

 

I was reading a case regarding this the other day (involving someone parking in a church car park, he denied he was the driver, but the judge decided otherwsise), I'm trying to recall the details and Ill post it up.

 

Ok found it here > (No. 1) > http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/private-land-enforcement/court-cases/court-cases-for-private-parking-tickets/

 

I note on that page there are quite a few cases where the decisions have gone either way, and whether the sign was viewable, the wording of it and the amount charged have all influenced the judges decision.

 

Andy

[Michael Browne]

CPS vs Stephen J Thomas

 

The difference in that case was that Thomas had more or less admitted he was the driver on internet forums but had denied it in court.

 

CPS produced copies of the posts in court.

[Jamberson]

They have no idea who was driving. Therefore they have no idea who to sue.

 

They know, their legal people know, the courts know - and you and I know - that without being able to identify the driver, the would-be case is dead in the water before it's begun. They can't just sue the RK, any more than they can sue the guy who fitted the radio.

 

Court cases like this are not in their business model.

 

The church case you posted involved a persistent offender and there was not issue as to who he was. He admitted it all before a case was brought. The irony is, if the OP in this case took your advice and sent them correspondence and a nominal fee, they would be implicating themselves and worsening their position!

[andydd]

Well clearly parking companies send the demand to the registered owner, it can then be upto the court to decide, also note that many newer 'car park's take photos whioch have also been used as evidence.

 

'They have no idea to sue' is just plain incorrect, if they start legal action against the driver he can deny he was the driver at the time but unless he can put forward a good explanation or name who was driver, a Judge would simply use the balance of probabilities to reach a decision, as indeed he did.

 

Your claim that any case is 'dead in the water' is just plain incorrect, but plaese post up any revelant case law that you believe backs up this theory.

 

Any pre-action correspondence would not be viewed as an admission at all, the person could simply deny liability. I havnmt suggested paying a nominal fee (unless someone wanted to too and then I would expect it to be a F&F settlement or perhaps a consent order from the court).

 

I'm not going to argue further on this but I believe that:-

 

1. There is clear case law that does allow parking companies to recover a 'fee' from people who park on private land.

 

2. There are many cases about this and yes it is true that the decisions are not at all consistent.

 

3. It would appear that parking companies do have a approx. 50/50 chance of winning.

 

4. The placement/wording of the signs and the amount being asked for are quite important.

 

If you believe that anyone can go park wherever they like without consequence then please go ahead and do so, all I'm doing is pointing out the possibilities of what may happen if you do so, the undenialable fact is that drivers (not many) HAVE been taken to court and some HAVE lost. (Ive tried to be helpful and Ive posted some of these cases).

 

Andy

[Jamberson]

Just rewind a bit.

 

First you said people had been advised on here to ignore, but then got sued but lost. You said this forum was "full of" such threads. But when asked, you were unable to provide a single example where that scenario unfolded.

 

Then we got onto some guidelines for imminent court hearings, and I pointed out that there is virtually no prospect of this going to court, and no sense in opening a dialogue with them, and that these guidelines are therefore irrelevant to the situation. (Post 74)

 

Then you challenged me on whether I was in a position to say whether the prospects of court were realistic. (Post 79)

 

So here we are -

 

- they don't know who was driving

- they very rarely take people to court anyway

- they have no authority to implement penalty charges in any case, and know that they would lose a defended case on that basis alone

- the forum is full of people ignoring them quite happily and nothing happening

 

So - the prospect of this going to court is negligible. So there is no purpose in communicating with the parking company.

[DBC]

The strategy is simple and works 99.9% of the time.You just keep ignoring all the silly and misleading PPC letters that come your way and eventually they will give up. The only time you respond is if you receive properly stamped court papers. then you start preparing your defence which, with the help of people on here and other forums, you are more than likely to win. It's a no brainer.

[assisted blonde]

Well here my take on this, the OP obviously is worried as many people would be and it makes no difference saying ignore it it will go away, bin it etc as if he/she is worried that wont help. They are also concerned about what it would cost if they did pay as money is tight.

Therefore I think the OP should reply to this company saying that they have received the notice however, they didnt see any signs and deny that they have committed any offence, and will be submitting a defence when the court papers come.

This would IMO stop the OP worrying about just ignoring somthing and put the ball back in parking eyes court, and in the very very unlikely event that Parking eye did wish to persue this in court it will look better for the OP that he has been reasonable and not very good on them if they havent responded.

Its all very well saying ignore this etc and it is fairly certain that a few letters later if ignored Parking eye will move on to someone else, but for the sake of a letter that accepts no liability I think the OP will be more comfortable and at the end of the day thats what they want.

And there is no need for everyone to start telling me that this charge is unenforceable etc etc I would be comfortable ignoring it but not everyone else would and we have to remember that not everyone is the same, just as some people will persue an ET claim regardless of advice, how it affects their mental health etc others will decide that even if they are confident that they are right, for their own peace of mind they wont persue.

[Jamberson]

I agree that it's entirely up to the OP what they do, and if it makes them feel easier, then yes - write a letter or two. There's also been talk of paying a small sum, and another option is to pay the whole charge and be done with. It's up to the OP.

 

Nevertheless, if they want advice, mine will be what I truly believe to be the best option, which is to ignore it and get on with something else in life.

[dontwannaberippedoff]

Yes I agree, there seems to be 3 options

1-pay the charge and look at it as the price to avoid the stress of the bullying letters

2-send a letter denying there is any debt owed etc

3- ignore all the threats and cross fingers that I am not one of the unlucky small minority that gets taken to court

 

Having read all the comments on here and a couple of other forums, I do feel much better informed about the situation. So thank you everybody. I am not going to go for option 1) as i feel it is so unfair and I can ill afford it at the moment. Whilst I was very drawn to option 2) and found some template letters on one forum, it is still no guarantee that it would prevent the threatening letters and in my mind would possibly draw attention to my particualar case....so...deep breath...option 3) I may well have to come back on here for further advice/support as the letters come in!

[Michael Browne]

.so...deep breath...option 3) I may well have to come back on here for further advice/support as the letters come in!

 

OK, well done. Don't forget that the letters are deliberately designed to scare you into paying by quoting all sorts of dire consequences.

 

Don't hesitate to come back for reassurance if you feel yourelf starting to waver

[Jamberson]

That's a very good point. The whole system works on fear of "what if...". They will try and scare you - they will talk about CCJs, bailiffs etc. They might even send you mocked up court papers marked "Draft Copy".

 

Do not waver! You do not have to deal with these people or respond to them in any way. You don't have to deny anything or name the driver, or have any contact with them.

 

In the extremely unlikely event that you received stamped court papers, then you can start a dialogue with them. They know they can't win as they are seeking to obtain a penalty payment from you, which is beyond the law. It's like making up your own fines - other people don't have to pay your fines, or theirs.

 

Come back for more support when you inevitably receive the next scary letter.

[Anus Horribilis]

They know, their legal people know, the courts know - and you and I know - that without being able to identify the driver, the would-be case is dead in the water before it's begun. They can't just sue the RK, any more than they can sue the guy who fitted the radio.

 

There is no reason at all why they cannot sue the RK. And why they cannot then ask the RK on oath who was driving the car on that day. And why a Judge cannot then find the claim proven if the RK's replies appear unconvincing or evasive.

 

It is exceptionally unlikely that they will bring a claim in practice because the cost/benefit calculation is adverse, but it is not impossible.

[havinastella]

There is no reason at all why they cannot sue the RK. And why they cannot then ask the RK on oath who was driving the car on that day. And why a Judge cannot then find the claim proven if the RK's replies appear unconvincing or evasive.

 

It is exceptionally unlikely that they will bring a claim in practice because the cost/benefit calculation is adverse, but it is not impossible.

 

What absolute crap!

[Jamberson]

There is no reason at all why they cannot sue the RK. And why they cannot then ask the RK on oath who was driving the car on that day. And why a Judge cannot then find the claim proven if the RK's replies appear unconvincing or evasive.

 

It is exceptionally unlikely that they will bring a claim in practice because the cost/benefit calculation is adverse, but it is not impossible.

 

The courts would have to agree to hear a case in which there is no evidence that the defendant is the accused. The purpose of a court case is not to find out who should be the real defendant, and I think you are also quite wrong is thinking that someone will be found culpable by default, because there is no other name being provided. There has to be proof against the defendant, or at least an admission.

[Anus Horribilis]

The courts would have to agree to hear a case in which there is no evidence that the defendant is the accused. The purpose of a court case is not to find out who should be the real defendant, and I think you are also quite wrong is thinking that someone will be found culpable by default, because there is no other name being provided. There has to be proof against the defendant, or at least an admission.

 

That's not how the civil court process works in E&W. The court would not 'agree' to hear the case, because there is no preliminary consideration of the validity of a claim before it is accepted. So Parkco could sue the RK, and the claim would be processed in the normal way. It would only end if an application was successfully made by the defendant to have the case struck out, after receiving the particulars of claim.

 

- The RK cannot expect to have a civil claim struck out on the grounds that 'there's no proof that I did it'. Axiomatically, it is for the court to weigh the evidence, not one of the parties.

- The RK could apply to have the claim struck out on the specific defence that he was not the driver, and would have a fair chance of success if that was his part 15 defence. But if that's a false statement then he's committing a serious criminal offence (PCJ).

 

I also didn't say that anyone would be found culpable by default. But the judge must make a decision, and the threshold is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a civil case, it's the much lower 'balance of probabilities'. So if the judge feels that the claim is slightly more persuasive than the defence, they can make that finding. A defendant who appeared evasive and dishonest in his statements to the court would be quite sufficient, IMHO.

[Jamberson]

Useful info. You clearly know the system well and I stand corrected on several points!

 

Nevertheless, I do think that it would be a long shot for the company concerned, and we are dealing here with probabilities. If the RK was to simply submit a defence of "I was not the driver", then I don't think the case would be likely to proceed, and in fact it might be true or at least in genuine doubt. I accept that the court might take the case, but it would come to a halt if that happened.

 

And there are also the other issues to consider - can they show the charge is not a penalty but an estimation of their costs, for example. I still think it highly unlikely such a case would go forward, and in fact they are very rare.

 

At the end of the day, the parking company is gambling its time and money on a long shot.

[andydd]

A great post by AH, who did a better job at explaining than I have done

 

Many people simply mention the RK argument and that it is infallible, it clearly is not. A judge could simply ask "where you driving at the time ?", you could answer honestly, no I wasnt't and this would no doubt be followed by "Who was ?", you could lie, this has some serious implications should the truth come out. This isnt like a police interview where you could say 'No comment', the Judge will want an answer, a refusal would almost certainly lose you the case.

 

As AH mention, the Judge will/must reach a decision, it may just come down to who he belives best and may take into account, body language, dress and all sorts of things, it simply is 'balance of probabilities' and not the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

I wouldnt say it's a long shot, the stastics do show that a large (50% ?) of cases are succesful for parking companies although in all likelyhood it would cost them more than they are likely to receive back given that Small Track costs are tightly regulated, which is why they in common with many other areas like to rely on heavily worded letters.

 

Andy

[DBC]

I still see you are basing that 50% figure on the very, very tiny figure that ever gets to court. The ignore route is still the best.

 

Regarding the identity of the driver. There is a case involving UKCPS where they sued the RK who was not the driver. When it got to court the RK stated that the driver was his wife, so the case was thrown out, because they had sued the wrong person. UKCPS then sued the RKs wife but lost again because the judge ruled that they were asking for an unfair penalty.

[andydd]

Well..I dont know about the figures, Im just using for arguments sake, the figure of 50%, although the statics quoted earlier just dont seem right, but there are now quite a few parking charge cases publisced and they would appear to fall roughly into a 50/50 split, both at a county court and if appealed at a high court level.

 

I dont really see the relevance of the UKCPS case, yes its obvious that if the RK claims that someone else was driving then action will be stopped and may be taken against the new identified driver, if the parking company then lost (the 2nd case) for a completely differenet reason it doesnt alter the original RK argument, all I was adding, is that many people are under the myth that the RK argument provides them with a 100% safegaurd that they will never be sued, but as AH and my posts have pointed out, it doesnt, if (and yes its a big, if) cases go to court, the RK argument will almost certainly fail, as a Judge will simply ask, were you/who was drining ?

 

Admittedly, there is a possible defence that you share a car with lots of family memebers and you genuinelly didnt know who was driving at the time, but the Judge may still ask questions and come to a decision using the 'balance of probabilities'.

 

The ignore route may be the best, but it could also apply to any sort of pre-action becaues you are under no obligation to do anything, I dont disagree with that, but a lot of this thread does tend to imply that its a walk over to win at court, where clearly it is not, thats not to say that there are many defence that can be used.

 

Andy

[DBC]

What I was trying to say is that by ignoring then you make the PPC's case that much harder. Sometimes (as shown above) they score an own goal by suing the wrong person and losing.Costing them time and money.

 

The golden rule should be ignore and keep ignoring unless in the very unlikely event that you receive court papers. Then you get proactive and with a good defence you will win. Why make the PPC's job easier by contacting them?