Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Ncp pcn***Successful***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2988 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I received a PCN for parking on the entrance to a train station car park but the PCN states I have "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay"

 

Can anyone spare any thoughts as to whether this will be successfully appealed?

 

First of all, I was parked before the barriers to the car park and secondly I wasn't parked in a bay to be not parked in it correctly?

 

Yes, I probably shouldn't of parked there but as the car park was full, there was no where else to go. Besides, it`s not like I was causing an obstruction.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

then wait for the notice to keeper to arrive through the post and we can see if they follow the correct procedures for that. The truth is it wont as railway land is not "relevent land" under the PoFA but better to let them hang themselves rather than tell them at this stage, it will make things much easier for you and conversely harder for them later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ok, so i`ve received the NTK.

 

Any ideas on where I go from here?

 

Technically the car wasn't parked in the car park but on the slip road before the barriers.

 

It states "Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay space" How can this be true if it was not in a space in the first place?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so i`ve received the NTK.

 

Any ideas on where I go from here?

 

Technically the car wasn't parked in the car park but on the slip road before the barriers.

 

It states "Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay space" How can this be true if it was not in a space in the first place?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Can you post up a redacted copy of the NTK please. Both sides.

 

Also which train station was this?

 

I assume they are quoting the POFA but as already mentioned, railway land is not ' relevant land ' to enable keeper liability.

The NTK/NTD will not be compliant anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to appeal to the operator before you get to write to POPLA so your appeal is that there has been no breach of the conditions of parking at the site ( they have to name the site accurately so if that is a bit vague more reason to argue later) because the vehicle was not parked on any land owned or controlled by NCP and you put it to "strict proof" that NCP has any authority to offer any contracts at that precise location where the alleged contravention took place.

 

Dont mention anything about relevant land or railway byelaws, we will get them on that one if they want to waste £27 an a POPLA appeal.

It would still be sueful to have the full details and sight of the NTK so we can provide you with more ammo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Thanks, I have responded per below:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

As keeper of this vehicle, I would like to appeal this Parking Charge Notice for the following reasons.

 

- The driver did not go through the car park barriers to enter in to any agreement with NCP, therefore, could not possibly of parked incorrectly within the markings of the bay space, as stated on the National Car Parks PCN.

 

- The driver was not causing an obstruction to any other motorist trying to enter or exit the car park.

 

- Furthermore, there are no markings on the road or signage to say that there should be no parking where the driver had parked their vehicle. If NCP did not want motorist to park there, they should mark the road appropriately, just like the Highways Agency, Local Council

 

On the above notes, please cancel this ticket as it is unjust and incorrectly given.

 

Kind Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume since you parked before the barriers / signs, then how can the contract apply to you? You didn't enter.

 

Could you let us know which car park? If possible, post up a google street view map of where you parked exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the delay, the auto email to tell me someone had replied did not work for some reason.

 

Here is the entrance to the car park at the top...

 

Entrance to car park.jpg

 

This is the car parked up.

 

 

Car in Picture.jpg

 

Station is Warrington Bank Quay, Car Park Number 2

Car not in picture.jpg

Edited by cadders
Add station name
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post up a redacted copy of the NTK please. Both sides.

 

Also which train station was this?

 

I assume they are quoting the POFA but as already mentioned, railway land is not ' relevant land ' to enable keeper liability.

The NTK/NTD will not be compliant anyway.

 

Sorry, will do this tonight.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

So I won......

 

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ....................

 

NCP Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge

 

Thanks for all your advice.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, thta makes it clearer and they dont have a hope in hell of winning a legal claim BUT I wouldnt park where you did if it is railway land as Railtrack do have the right to tow away and prosecute you. be warned for the future.

 

If they were to issue a ticket based on Bylaw 14, then the parking company wouldn't make the money from it, they would rather pocket the money themselves. Although I bet if you continued to park in the same place, they may go for Bylaw 14 next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...