PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - National Car Parks Limited (NCP)
Ermac
post Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 11:31
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 8 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,331



Hello good people,

Here I am again asking for your advice. Back in June I entered one of NCP's car park in Wolverhampton. I've been there for 11 minutes and 29 seconds and I did not leave my car. Couple weeks later I got my Parking Charge Notice for this "Crime", asking me to pay 60 pounds or 100 after 14 weeks "discount" period.

A few weeks later I got "Keeper Liability Notice" letter informing me that I have 14 days to pay 100 pounds or this case will be forwarded to Debt Collector Company.

I know I am here in wrong and I should've buy the ticket but at the time I was there with my mentally ill friend, we had a cigarette and by the time I realised I don't have change, I left the car park.

Until now I did not do anything about this and I know I should've appeal. I just couldn't get my head around with my current family problems and 12 hours shifts at work.

What are my chances of getting away from paying this fine?

Could you please advise?
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 33)
Advertisement
post Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 11:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 10:11
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,626
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Also how do they explain how a odcument that is legally priviliged can be adduced into evidence? Or is the teaboy who wrote this template response unaware of what the term "legally privileged" actually means?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ermac
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:53
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 8 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,331



Here is BWL's reply. What do I say to that?

QUOTE
Good Afternoon

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

The correspondence issued by Our Client gave you, the Registered Keeper, the opportunity to name the driver of the vehicle on the date of the contravention. The correspondence warned that should this information not be forthcoming within 28 days of the date on the letter, and payment not have been made, they had the right to recover the Outstanding Balance feom you under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Registered Keeper is liable for the sum of £100.00 as stated on the Notice to Keeper. As this matter has been passed to us, you are also liable for our £60.00 instructions fee. The signage in situ makes provision for Our Client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the Parking Charge Notice. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

We appreciate that it may not always be convenient to call us, therefore why not review your account online by visiting our website www.bwlegal.co.uk to set up your account online. Our Customer Portal provides you with the functionality to speak to us by webchat, complete your income and expenditure, make a payment or set up an affordable payment plan at your convenience.

Should you have any further queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.


Kind Regards,
bwlegal


This post has been edited by Ermac: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 13:04
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,574
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



"Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park."

But you point ut to them that you did not stay in the car park and therefore did not agree to any additional charge whatsoever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 13:49
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,626
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I would ask them again which teaboy wrote this particular mash up of a response?

Firstly, you note that they still have not explained how the contract can be legally privileged, when it was not communication between them and their client
Secondly, you note their contention that they are following POFA in holding you, the keeper, liable, but that they MISREPRESENT to the consumer that you are liable for more than this; the driver may have accepted certain terms and conditions, but that is irrelevant. The POFA, whcih you claim to be following, does not allow for more than the sum on the NtK to be recovered. £60 is clearly not the amount on the NtK, and so cannot be recovered. In addition, you require an explanation of how they think they can recover these costs when they are specifically prohibited unde the CPR27.14(2)(g)

You require a reponse within 14 days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ermac
post Mon, 31 Dec 2018 - 08:21
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 8 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,331



Good morning everyone, I hope all of you had a lovely Christmas with your families and you received some nice gifts.

This Christmas I've got my very first ever Claim Form followed by a letter from BWL. I've registered on moneyclaim.gov.uk and I am able to view my claim there but I did not select any action yet before I ask for your advice. Since the claim issue date is 20th of December and it's already 31st shall I start AOS to buy some more time or would it have negative impact on my case?

What happens if I select 'start defence'? Will I need to put my defence in there straight away?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 31 Dec 2018 - 08:49
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,822
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



We always advise to acknowledge service immediately
This is especially true at this time of the year

The task may be forgotten or the password lost

You dispute all of the debt
You do not dispute jurisdiction - it' means the England & Wales County Court System, not its Post Office at the Northampton

Do not put anything at all in the defence box

You won't use Moneyclaim to submit the defence anyway

As an aside, NCP has been very reluctant to take cases to court but we've seen two or three claims recently

This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 - 09:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 20:57
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,626
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No,response to the response you hopefully sent above?
It won't look good in court
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ermac
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 13:51
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 8 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,331



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 20:57) *
No,response to the response you hopefully sent above?
It won't look good in court


No, I did not bother replying to them as I got the court papers literally couple days later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ermac
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 14:08
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 8 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,331



I acknowledged of service.
QUOTE
Particular of Claim:
The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £242.88 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on 00/06/2018 in the private car park/land located at xxx xxx xx in relation to a vehicle, xxxxx xxxx xxx registration mark xxxxxx.
The Defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN Date to pay the PCN, but failed to do so.
Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.04 from 00/06/2018 to 00/12/2018 being an amount of £7.xx.
The Claimant's claiim includes £60.00 costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions.


The points for my defence are:

  1. The driver left the site without payment therefore no breach was made.
  2. There is no maximum grace period set by BPA therefore 11 minutes 29 seconds was reasonable.
  3. ANPR cameras may be couple minutes of out sync (proof?)


Draft of Defence

QUOTE
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

My name (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxxxxxx private car park on xx/xx/xxxx.

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.

3. According to the ANPR photographs provided by the Claimant, Defendant’s vehicle left the site without payment after 11 minutes and 29 seconds.

3.1. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Period:

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

3.2 The driver did not accept the offer and has left the site therefore no breach was made.

4. The Claimant’s Claims for the sum of £242.88 seems to be extremely high considering POFA4 (5) which said: Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 23:28
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I would say this, instead of your version (can you not prove time on site, from Google location or dashcam or anything?):

QUOTE
3. According to the ANPR photographs provided by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle seems to be claimed to have been captured at the exit after a mere 11 minutes and 29 seconds on site. Not only is this very short period considered to be de minimis, given the time of year/conditions in the car park, the Defendant further contends that the entry/exit cameras are separate and operate their own timings, with no synchronisation. It is contended that the car was actually parked for under ten minutes, and left the site within a reasonable grace period without accepting any contract to park and leave the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their skewed timings, not just by producing ANPR system records from each camera but also being put to strict proof that the system clocks/timers were operating exactly in synch on the material date.



And remove/change this, because you are saying here with your choice of wording, that the Claimants were compliant!!

QUOTE
At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Period:


NONO.

Something like this would be better:

QUOTE
At the material time, the Claimant was obliged, under their Trade body's mandatory form of rules - that the Supreme Court Judges in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case referred to as a 'regulatory framework' - to follow the British Parking Association CODE OF PRACTICE ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Period



And I see nothing in your defence about 'no landowner authority' (always a good safety net in all defences v PPCs) and nothing about the signs. Was it at night/bad weather & awful visibility? Say so in your defence, if so.

And this is weak compared to defence examples we usually see, that explain that the added charges were not incurred/paid and that such 'double recovery' is an abuse of process:
QUOTE
The Claimant’s Claims for the sum of £242.88 seems to be extremely high


This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 23:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ermac
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 17:56
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 8 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,331



Ok how does it look now?

QUOTE
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

My name (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxxxxxx private car park on xx/xx/xxxx.

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.

3. According to the ANPR photographs provided by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle seems to be claimed to have been captured at the exit after a mere 11 minutes and 29 seconds on site. Not only is this very short period considered to be de minimis, given the time of year/conditions in the car park, the Defendant further contends that the entry/exit cameras are separate and operate their own timings, with no synchronisation. It is contended that the car was actually parked for under ten minutes, and left the site within a reasonable grace period without accepting any contract to park and leave the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their skewed timings, not just by producing ANPR system records from each camera but also being put to strict proof that the system clocks/timers were operating exactly in synch on the material date.

3.1. At the material time, the Claimant was obliged, under their Trade body's mandatory form of rules - that the Supreme Court Judges in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case referred to as a 'regulatory framework' - to follow the British Parking Association CODE OF PRACTICE ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Period

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

3.2 The driver did not accept the offer and has left the site therefore no breach was made.

4. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal Ltd, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £217,88 (can I include here the interest and solicitior cost?). The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £217,88. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.


Amount Claimed £167.88 (£100 PCM + £60 inicial legal costs + £7.88 statuatory interest)
Court Fee £25
Solicitor Costs £50

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 11:55
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,626
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Interest is fine
So is the £50 to file the claim
No other solicitor or debt collection costs allowed
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 12:13
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 253
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



Sorry I can't help other than with picking these up:

inicial = initial

standard format is £217.88 not £217,88

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 12:18
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,822
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238




4. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal Ltd, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £217,88.

The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the £60 additional charge, previously described by BWLegal as initial legal costs, has not been incurred
b. Even if it has been incurred, BWLegal is well aware that CPR 27.14(2) does not permit such legal costs to be recovered in the Small Claims Court
c. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

5 The Defendant asserts that it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.
The Defendant invites the Court use its case management powers in accordance with CPR 3.3(4) to strike out the claim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 18th February 2019 - 01:03
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.