Napier Parking and Jengers Mead Car Park, Fixed Charge Notice |
Napier Parking and Jengers Mead Car Park, Fixed Charge Notice |
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! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 08:59
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:06
Post
#7
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 6 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,894 |
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! |
|
|
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. 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 |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 11:48
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 6 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,894 |
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! |
|
|
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 .......... |
|
|
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, |
|
|
Sat, 6 Sep 2014 - 12:31
Post
#13
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 6 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,894 |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
-------------------- |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Sep 2014 - 17:17
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 301 Joined: 5 Aug 2006 From: Reading Member No.: 6,991 |
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 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:38 |