PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Napier Parking and Jengers Mead Car Park, Fixed Charge Notice
chris1428
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 08:59
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 6 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,894



Yesterday I stopped to buy an item from a shop in Billingshurst as I was passing through. I have never been there before.

This is a summary from my notes on what happened.
Napier Parking FCN
Jengers Mead Car Park
Date 05/09/2014

I was driving to Gatwick to collect a friend of a plane from Bodrum. I needed some eye lotion – Blephasol – from a chemist or oculist, as we were going away on holiday for 3 weeks. I spotted an Oculist and turned round to find a place to park, and I turned into a small shopping mall. The place was emblazoned with parking signs. I parked and got out to investigate how much I needed to pay as I was only going to be couple of minutes in the shop.

I walked round looking for the machine to pay – and found out how much – I decided to return to the car and go elsewhere.
On returning to the car, I found a person peering into the passenger side window – I had left my phone there and was immediately concerned that someone was going to break in. I asked him what he was doing and he said he had issued a parking ticket to me. I said to him – I am not going to park here, I am leaving, I have only just got here 2 minutes ago, and I am not accepting the contractual charge for parking as it is too expensive for just getting one items in a shop.

He pointed out that he had already issued the ticket and walked away.

I had arrived at the car park at 15:08 (I was concerned that I would be late – so had looked at my watch). I had walked to the ticket machine – looked at the prices and decided not to park there. I walked back to the car.

The ticket shows Time issued 15:09:19
Observation Time: 15:09:07 to 15:09:19
So he observed my car for 12 seconds.

There is a code of conduct at the BPA website – to which they are a member which says
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.

This is the link to this site.
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/BPA_...ctober_2012.pdf

I understand that these people have a "bad" reputation, and my wife - who is the registered keeper of the car says pay up, as she is a worrier.

What is the correct coarse of action - just ignore and wait for court summons or appeal (a joke I think) on there web site process.

The world would be a better place without these parasites - I just feel sorry for the poor person having to do a job that he probably realises is just dishonest!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 08:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
kommando
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 09:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Never ignore, even if they are a current non court operation they could change hands and use the 6 year rule.

Appeal to the PPC on basis of grace period (do not admit to being the driver, instead refer to 'The Driver did this or that') but expect it to be rejected. But with the rejection should come a POPLA code for a second appeal to POPLA, here you will use the forums completed cases part to compile 100% winning appeal using GPEOL as one of the points, Genuine Pre Estimte Of Losses. IE my visit cost you nothing so go spin wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 10:02
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



Appeal using the C.O.P passage that you found.
When they reject that and issue a POPLA Code use, it to cost them.

Although you may wait, up-to 56 days until they have paid for the keeper details from the DVLA...
Or if you want to take the Wife out of the loop, appeal the windscreen ticket.
Winning arguments to use are easily found in the completed case summaries.


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheBigBad
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 10:12
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 448
Joined: 5 Jun 2012
Member No.: 55,313



I personally would take your wife out of the loop and appeal against the ticket rather than waiting for the NTK.

I would appeal saying that you exited your vehicle and went to the machine to pay but when you got to the machine and read the signage containing the terms of parking along with the charges for actually parking you decided that this was too expensive and that the terms were unfair. You then returned to your vehicle so that you may leave the car park, only to find their agent had just finished issuing a ticket after observing your car for 12 seconds (as stated on the ticket). This is clearly a breach of BPA code of practice 13.2 which relates to "grace periods".

Of course they will likely reject this but you will get a POPLA code. Come back here when you do and we will help you to construct a winning POPLA appeal using the above points along with the other usual winning points.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
farmerboy
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 10:14
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Joined: 8 Nov 2013
From: an alternate dimension
Member No.: 66,580



QUOTE (chris1428 @ Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 09:59) *
The world would be a better place without these parasites - I just feel sorry for the poor person having to do a job that he probably realises is just dishonest!

No. A decent human being wouldn't give you a ticket for a 12 sec observation time or do this kind of work where he clearly knows it is an unenforceable penalty. He clearly loves his job.
No need to pay. Follow the forum advice and they will pay for their greed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 10:37
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



There was no contract. The terms were not accepted and the driver left. This is exactly how it works - and you even told their attendant so.

But don't ignore, challenge as above.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris1428
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:06
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 6 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,894



QUOTE (TheBigBad @ Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:12) *
I personally would take your wife out of the loop and appeal against the ticket rather than waiting for the NTK.

I would appeal saying that you exited your vehicle and went to the machine to pay but when you got to the machine and read the signage containing the terms of parking along with the charges for actually parking you decided that this was too expensive and that the terms were unfair. You then returned to your vehicle so that you may leave the car park, only to find their agent had just finished issuing a ticket after observing your car for 12 seconds (as stated on the ticket). This is clearly a breach of BPA code of practice 13.2 which relates to "grace periods".

Of course they will likely reject this but you will get a POPLA code. Come back here when you do and we will help you to construct a winning POPLA appeal using the above points along with the other usual winning points.


Hi, thanks for the replies.

I have lodged an appeal through their crumby web site as follows:

"On arrival at the car park, I exited my vehicle and went to the machine to pay but when I got to the machine and read the signage containing the terms of parking along with the charges for actually parking I decided that this was too expensive and that the terms were unfair. I then returned to my vehicle so that I might leave the car park, only to find their agent had just finished issuing a ticket after observing my car for just 12 seconds (as stated on the ticket). This is clearly a breach of BPA code of practice 13.2 which relates to "grace periods". I did not accept the offer of a contract to park, I left, so no contract in force and therefore no loss to your client."

So I suppose the aim is now to cost them as much as possible in time and money. I like it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
farmerboy
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Joined: 8 Nov 2013
From: an alternate dimension
Member No.: 66,580



They will do their best to try and persuade you that the ticket was issued correctly but when they reject they must issue the code for POPLA. Yes, it will cost them time
and £30+ to try and persuade you otherwise. No loss is as you stated the winning argument. If they have any sense they will cancel but I doubt it.

QUOTE (chris1428 @ Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:06) *
So I suppose the aim is now to cost them as much as possible in time and money. I like it!


Come and join the fun. We are Fightback Forums. We aim to cost the PPCs as much time and money as possible.

This post has been edited by farmerboy: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:37
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (chris1428 @ Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:06) *
I have lodged an appeal through their crumby web site as follows:

See what they say. I would consider a complaint to the BPA too - for what it's worth...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris1428
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:48
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 6 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,894



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:37) *
QUOTE (chris1428 @ Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:06) *
I have lodged an appeal through their crumby web site as follows:

See what they say. I would consider a complaint to the BPA too - for what it's worth...


I will also escalate to Francis Maude the local MP who got involved here before.

This must be harming the business of the shops in that immediate area.

Yes I will come and join the fun! laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris1428
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:00
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 6 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,894



Other actions possible:

The code of conduct states that employees should not be paid commission on tickets issued. So I suppose they may be given a quota or some other methods to encourage or coerce them to write tickets - on pain of loosing their job.

So perhaps time - after the initial actions - to get the BPA to investigate - as they state they carry out an annual audit on compliance .......... ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:17
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



Sometimes it is better to contact the owners to see if they can be reasonable so.....

Site is owned by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP and according to Napier's site all the parking arrangements have been assigned to them by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP

http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uplo...-conditions.pdf

So who runs / owns Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP. None other than Mr James Nicholas John De Savary and Mr Nicholas Charles De Savary.

Could they perhaps be relied upon to put pressure on Napier to get it cancelled. Well they would have to talk to the owners of Napier who are Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary.

So are Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary reasonable people. Here is a local article

http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/...s-ban-1-6140519

and has this happend before? Well in 2012, the guy there appears to be hiding behind hedges

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...g-Charge-Notice!

I'd take your story to the local press and to West Sussex Trading Standards for aggressive commercial practices.

Stick with the POPLA appeal too,




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris1428
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:31
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 6 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,894



QUOTE (emanresu @ Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 13:17) *
Sometimes it is better to contact the owners to see if they can be reasonable so.....

Site is owned by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP and according to Napier's site all the parking arrangements have been assigned to them by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP

http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uplo...-conditions.pdf

So who runs / owns Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP. None other than Mr James Nicholas John De Savary and Mr Nicholas Charles De Savary.

Could they perhaps be relied upon to put pressure on Napier to get it cancelled. Well they would have to talk to the owners of Napier who are Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary.

So are Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary reasonable people. Here is a local article

http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/...s-ban-1-6140519

and has this happend before? Well in 2012, the guy there appears to be hiding behind hedges

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...g-Charge-Notice!

I'd take your story to the local press and to West Sussex Trading Standards for aggressive commercial practices.

Stick with the POPLA appeal too,




Yes - I was away of the circle of ownership - the workd does not need these people.

I am starting with the MP for Billingshurst - who has been involved a lot in the past - when they used to clamp.

Away for 3 weeks now so will pick this up on my return.

This post has been edited by chris1428: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 14:31
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



I wouldn't equate Mr de Savary with Napier but, as he's discovered, if the amount has enough zeros, it doesn't matter if the account is in the black or the red

The bank will treat you just the same
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SatNavSam
post Sun, 7 Sep 2014 - 14:45
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,215
Joined: 1 Jul 2012
From: Roaming the South
Member No.: 55,802



I have photos of signs that I took in August 2013. I can post them up if they will be any help. They may, of course, have changed since then.


--------------------

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
D P Dance
post Tue, 9 Sep 2014 - 08:26
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 5 Aug 2006
From: Reading
Member No.: 6,991



The Parking Prankster blogged this and Mr de Savary issued a very detailed reply in which he accused the OP of bilking, which, IIANM, is a criminal offence.

http://[Commercial link removed]/se...;max-results=50

I understanding is that Napier has had some success in court when it has issued claims.



--------------------
D P Dance

A member of the Berkshire Hunt
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Tue, 9 Sep 2014 - 14:55
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,323
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Member No.: 63,179



de Savary wasn't there.

Whatever de Savary chooses to believe the OP will win on no GPEOL.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
D P Dance
post Tue, 9 Sep 2014 - 17:17
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 5 Aug 2006
From: Reading
Member No.: 6,991



QUOTE (dandyman @ Tue, 9 Sep 2014 - 15:55) *
de Savary wasn't there.

Whatever de Savary chooses to believe the OP will win on no GPEOL.



It is not a chance I would take

http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uplo...u-Judgement.pdf

http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uplo...der-SUMMARY.pdf


--------------------
D P Dance

A member of the Berkshire Hunt
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 9 Sep 2014 - 17:29
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



They are court cases; it's got to go through POPLA yet!


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
D P Dance
post Tue, 9 Sep 2014 - 17:50
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 5 Aug 2006
From: Reading
Member No.: 6,991



Indeed, but I am willing to wager that Mr de Savary is perfectly able to convince an Adjudicator that his losses amount to what he says they do.

As I say, I would not be too sure of winning a Popla appeal against him. Why do you think you could?


--------------------
D P Dance

A member of the Berkshire Hunt
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:38
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here