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

[typeratlast]

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

Edited May 21, 2008 by typeratlast

[lamma]

did they use MCO ? what does their claim say ?

 

AIUI they have no power to request insurance documents and the cost of their request is a few lines contained in a letter that discusses other things. How that can add to their claim (more than a few pence) is beyond me). if it was me I wouldn't send them any insurance documents, I would examine their claim carefully and then prepare my defense based on what other communications had happened.

My bet is that CPS want the insurance for two reasons

1) to get more ID info

2) to see if it has other driver cover.

 

I can't see the court in a civil case asking for insurance documents and there is no way that CPS is empowered to pursue this.

 

CPS delights in searching around nooks and crannies to make official complaints. they love to set people up ! So I guess they think that if the policy does not cover other drivers they can shop the policyholder for permitting. If so they have the wrong idea completely about how insurance works - but will not explain further here, as well all know CPS spends a lot of time on here.

they will be watching this thread closely so if you want to go to PM to the trusted names then I suggest you do.

[donaldtramp]

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

Edited May 21, 2008 by donaldtramp

[Fair-Parking]

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.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Fair-Parking
typographical

[green_and_mean]

 

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

 

Its also free to register and use CAG as I'm sure the OP has realised!! I'm sure we can give just as much advice on here and the Perky CPS story was actually started on this board (Perky is an former contributer ). If you like Peepipooh so much I suggest you stay there!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144471-perky-defeated-oldham-county.html

[donaldtramp]

Its also free to register and use CAG as I'm sure the OP has realised!! I'm sure we can give just as much advice on here and the Perky CPS story was actually started on this board (Perky is an former contributer ). If you like Peepipooh so much I suggest you stay there! :grin:

 

Now now, easy tiger!!

We are all on the same side:) and there are a lot of folk who are registered to both sites. It's just that pepipoo is a specialist legal forum for motorists and concentrates purely on motorists.

The CPS story has been running for the same length of time on Pepipoo and he also posted on Pepipoo.

Can't see why we can't be friends:wink:. After all we're not the bad guys!!!

 

Cheers

DT

[pin1onu]

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.

Edited May 21, 2008 by pin1onu

[Steve__M]

I would suspect that CPS already have enough information from your post to identify you, but you have not given out any useful information to them as yet, so that's fine.

 

So do not say anything here that you are not happy for the parking company to read. They are fishing. Attempting to reply to any of their irrelevant points risks giving them information you'd rather they didn't have. Note that if you gave me permission, my insurance allows me to drive your car, so showing that only one person is listed on a policy says nothing.

 

pin1onu is absolutely right. You are not required to tell them who the driver was even if you know. The law is very clear on this.

 

Part 44 makes interesting reading. You should draw attention to CPS's conduct at the hearing and ask for your costs to be paid (you can ask for up to £50 loss of earnings if you take a day off work, and travel expenses).

 

There also seems to be a question as to whether it is justifiable to issue MCOL claims for money against random people who may have no connection to the alleged contract. The people behind the defendant in the cases where CPS lost would be useful contacts I'm sure.

 

How about replying as follows:

 

"The courts request that all parties are encouraged to settle the case before issuing any court claims. So your rush to the courts is regrettable.

 

Nevertheless, I look forward to receiving copies of all CCTV images of the car to help me review my liability for the charge you are claiming.

 

With regard to your request for documentation, I refer you to CPR 31.1(2) which states: "This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track."

[lamma]

I wouldn't respond just yet..

[Rob S]

I suspect the problem with not responding is that it could be made to look bad in court by Perky and co. It might be better to write in response and point out that you are under no obligation to produce insurance documents and CPS have no legal right to request them. You could also note that their request indicates they have no evidence as to who the driver was on the relevant occasion, yet they are proposing to issue proceedings against the registered keeper. Tell them you will be hightlighting this to the court and looking for a speedy strike out of the claim if it is issued.

 

Their quoting the various CPR sections is a blatent attempt to scare you, made worse by the fact that the quoted sections do not apply in your case. I would tell CPS that you will highlight these unsavoury tactics to the judge should the matter go to court.

[Hobbie]

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.

[pin1onu]

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.

[Hobbie]

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.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Hobbie

[PPC Buster]

It seems that Perky has issued numerous new claims via MCOL since last weeks away loss. He sure is a glutton for punishment.

 

Perky should read the CPR in particular,

Rule 27.2 says the following:

 

(1) The following Parts of these Rules do not apply to small claims –

 

(b) Part 31 (disclosure and inspection);

No disclosure for Perky. Ahhh!

[lamma]

the more I think about this latest blatant underhand claptrap the nearer I get to spilling my wine... laughter not anger..

[fridgedoor]

Apparently CPS now stands for Complete Phishing and Spying. They never seem to do anything else. Perky makes threats as to discovery, not knowing it does not even apply to small claims. It's like letting your teenage son loose with a law book and telling him to make it up. I'm sure Perky makes a mean chip butty but armchair lawyer of the year he ain't.

[typeratlast]

Thanks all, well he has gained my email address and jumped in.

 

News for him.......be prepared you need to be mate.

[lamma]

he has opened several doors here that he can't close. Will say no more in public - sorry Perky, consult your "in-house legal experts without using third parties".

[lamma]

Thanks all, well he has gained my email address and jumped in.

 

News for him.......be prepared you need to be mate.

 

err is this the email address you have used here as part of registration ?

PM me ASAP please.

[typeratlast]

His email reads........

 

Dear Mr Milner,

We have recently written to you in relation to your court action for an outstanding parking ticket.

We have requested the CCTV images to be copied onto disc and we will endeavour to get a copy to you – Please can you advise a format to which you can view video clips.

Thank You

Paul Scott

Combined Parking Solutions.

[typeratlast]

HI have pm'd you already about 15 mins ago. Thanks very much

[lamma]

got it. did i fulfill my promise ?

[JonCris]

Who are these clowns demanding your insurance & suggesting your silence will imply guilt. Who the hell do they think they are, the police enforcing a section 172

 

Tell them you'll be pleased to see them in Court where you will be producing their letter as evidence of their misconduct.

 

I suspect a Judge will take a very dim view of that correspondence & their attempts to imply they have the authority to conduct themselves in such a way

 

It's a civil matter they can't even demand the skin off your teeth. However if they do litigate you can demand all kinds of things and you can involve the owner of the CP

 

I suggest that you report them to TS, the Police, the CP owner, the council, your local councillor & your MP. In fact report them to Uncle Tom Cobbley & all .............................. bleeding idiots

 

Almost forgot if they got your details from the DVLA complain to them as well remembering to send them a copy of that letter. Their response might be interesting

Edited May 22, 2008 by JonCris

[PPC $ cambuster]

Good to see the depths these "companies" will plumb in order to try and frighten the gullible into needlessly paying their unenforcible invoices(begging letters). The message is obviously spreading that these PPC invoices can be safely ignored and not payed. This particular PPC seems to be getiing desperate in its attempts to stay in "business" and with any luck will soon go bust

[typeratlast]

Come to think of it, how did he get my email off here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

OOh think i may have to get legal advise.