4 Years to the day I posted this thread and continued to maintain it to conclusion to help others , ... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?200733-NCP-and-Railway-Car-Park Here I am now 4 years later and it's happened again ! I'm interested in this Game Changer thread, .. without boring the pants off everyone with every specific detail, ... I parked for the day (again at Ely train station) , bought a valid ticket, parked in a valid space and returned at the end of the day to find a charge notice stuck to the windscreen apparently due to being outside a marked bay. I would like to offer myself as an example again for whether anything in the game has changed or whether I should change my response, ... I'm feeling like I am on fairly safe ground again this time, the parking spaces are marked and separated by a single white line between them. I was parked at the end of the row which is bordered by the white line and a raised kerb. When I arrived at the train station the vehicle next to the space I chose had parked very close almost covering the white line, so I parked my car with the wheels on the kerb which borders on to a bark filled landscaped area. My logic is that if the bay is marked on one side by a white line and on the other side by a kerb, then by being on that kerb I am technically in the space .... not over or outside it ! My original thought before finding this "Game Changer" thread was to ignore it again and weather the storm, ...but if the Forum Elders believe there is a new and better process then I'm very happy to take advice. I've had the original "parking ticket" and now a "Notice to Keeper" which requires me to do one of the following, ... etc.. strangely, just ignore is not one of the options ! The letter ends with "NCP as owner, lawful occupier, or agent of the landowner, has the right to seek payment of this parking charge.

We booked tickets to our local theatre in August, we booked all 4 seats in a box. It was for a special occasion and a joint birthday gift for our good friends. The performance is for this Saturday 27th October, we were contacted by the theatre today (25th October) at 3pm to say that the box is no longer available as the touring company will need to install lights in there. I am confused as the show has been running since Monday 22nd and presumably they did a rehearsal. The tickets were £35 each plus £2.50 each booking fee (even though it was a debit card booking directly with the theatre box office). They are saying that they will offer us alternative seats in the front stall, we have refused and asked for our money back, but they have said that their terms and conditions in their policy says that they have the right to offer us alternative seating, ... don't we also have the right to refuse their offer ?

I've tried not to be lazy and have looked up the links to SOGA and Tesco's own policies, .. but I'm still having difficulty getting the facts exactly straight. My son bought a Praktica TV from Tesco 5 months ago it is not working now (does not switch on at all). He still has the receipt, paid using debit card. He has been told that they will not refund or replace but send it for repair because it is past 28 days old. Tesco's Electrical Goods Refund Policy states that "Electrical products are guaranteed for 1 year. Please return electrical products to your local Superstore or Extra with proof of purchase for a refund, exchange or repair. Apparently according to Tesco's interpretation of SOGA they are the ones who make the choice. My son would like a refund or replacement, they have said it is not up to him. It has always been my understanding that our consumer rights were protected by legislation and that if a product is not fit for purpose ( because it doesn't work !) or faulty, this falls into both categories, then you can reject the goods and have a refund or replacement. I have always understood that I can choose not to have it repaired. If I choose to have a repair then I might impact any further opportunities to reject the goods outright. Could one of my experienced forum friends please enlighten me ? Thanks John

I think this is a VERY KEY part of this train of correspondence, I am very interested to know what you mean when you say there is no DirectDebit agreement set up? under what mandate has your bank been paying these people? direct debits are strictly controlled in this country. Any more info about this ?

OK All -As the Original Poster of this thread - Nothing Happened at all !! the world didn't end, I didn't lose all my worldly possessions, I didn't lose my kneecaps ...etc etc. Everything worked EXACTLY as the experts on here said it would, my last update was September 2009, it's now March 2010 ...I think we're done here. Nothing more to say. For all the doubting Thomas' please read this thread fully. Thanks to ALL for your support. PS Could the moderator please amend this thread to put this final post at the top to encourage people to read it and be assured the advice works if you just stick at it.

Yep ! thanks.

I wasn't quite sure where to put it,....but I've added a thread on the "Campaigns" forum, it is not specifically a motoring only matter but would probably be appreciated by those intending to fight unfair prosecutions.

Not Guilty ? ...pay your own costs ! I heard a very interesting interview today relating to proposed changes by the government due to be sneaked in this month , despite massive objections from consultative parties and many other groups. It would appear that the government wants to significantly reduce the amount a person is able to recoup in costs if they successfully fight a prosecution attempt. In a nutshell if you are innocent and you prove it, it will cost you. The link to this article focuses on motorists , BUT it is not only motorists who will be impacted it is everybody. There is a link to the No.10 website petition page. RE: 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs: 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs&mid=0 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs Drivers acquitted of motoring charges will pay costs under new government scheme Could you afford to fight an unfair ticket? New regulations set to come into force later this month will see motorists forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not guilty or acquitted of motoring offences. The government-inspired change to the current set-up - where drivers get costs refunded if they're innocent - is being implemented to save cash, in spite of fierce opposition from legal and motoring groups who were nominally 'consulted' before the new policy was drawn up. According to the Ministry of Justice, the age old principle of 'the loser pays' has been costing the government too much money. As a result the new rules make it clear that in future drivers will have to foot the bill for clearing their name. According to The Taxpayers Alliance, that equates to 400,000 people, or one in four of those who challenge a ticket. Now the Conservative party has joined the last ditch effort to derail the changes, and campaigners are looking for more signatories to a petition on the Number 10 website. We're off to go and sign the petition ourselves, and you can find out more by reading the press release below, that was issued by the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers today. YOU CAN SIGN THE PETITION HERE Petition to: ensure an acquitted defendant's rights to costs recovery from the Court Central Funds remain unchanged. | Number10.gov.uk AMOL press Release: Tories Back Protest Against the MOJ's New Costs Recovery Rules & Vote for Parliamentary Debate Current law dictates that if you have paid for legal representation and are prosecuted for an offence and found not guilty, you will receive an order for your costs to be assessed and paid back by the court. However, according to the Ministry of Justice, this age old principle of "the loser pays" was costing the government too much money. A consultation was first announced in 2008 on restricting the costs the government has to pay as a result of losing so many cases. The consultation attracted responses from over 100 organisations and individuals. Responses included overwhelming opposition to the change in rules, as it was felt that if a person is proven innocent they should not be financially penalised with an extensive legal bill. The new rules, to be implemented in October, will mean that even if a defendant is acquitted of an offence, they will be expected to foot the majority of their legal bill themselves. In June 2009, the MOJ announced their plans to go ahead with their rule changes regardless of the resistance. Jeanette Miller, President of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, was astounded that the MOJ ignored the opposition and steam-rollered ahead with changes in the rules. Not satisfied with the MOJ's complete disregard to the protests raised during the consultation process, she launched an e-petition live on the no.10 website. To date the petition is backed by 3,559 signatures and the number is increasing every minute - Petition to: ensure an acquitted defendant's rights to costs recovery from the Court Central Funds remain unchanged. | Number10.gov.uk. Miss Jeanette Miller of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL) comments:"I recognize that government spending may need to be reduced but it will be taxpaying motorists and small businesses who will be most penalized by the planned rule change. Saving money at the expense of having a fair system with access to justice for all parties accused of a crime is not the answer. It will most likely result in increased costs as lawyers across the country are being briefed on a campaign to make wasted costs applications in every instance of CPS inefficiency which will result in the CPS being forced to pay sums expected to far outweigh the amount the government are seeking to save." The petition itself outlines the affect these rules will have on motorists, as legal aid is not available for the majority of motoring prosecutions and most members of the general public will appreciate the grave impact of the inability to defend a prosecution for a motoring offence being that there are currently around 27 million licence holders in the UK. However, if allowed to be implemented, the rule changes will also affect any defendant acquitted of a crime in the Magistrates' Court if they chose to instruct a lawyer who charges normal (not legal aid) rates. 1.4 million motorists were prosecuted through the Magistrates' Courts in 2007. 26% were found not guilty. This is a huge issue and until now, it seemed to be sweeping in under the carpet due to a lack of understanding of what it actually means to the average citizen on the street. So far the petition has support from the Law Society, dozens of QC's and the Criminal Bar Association have fully endorsed the sentiments behind the petition. The petition is also backed by the following organizations: 1. Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL); 2. Health and Safety Lawyers Association; 3. The Criminal Bar Association; 4. The Association of British Drivers; 5. Drivers' Alliance (responsible for the largest ever petition against road pricing who obtained 1.8 million signatures over a 3 month period); and 6. The London Criminal Solicitors' Association; 7. The Taxpayers' Alliance; and 8. The AA. Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive at the TaxPayers' Alliance said:"This proposal is unjust, unfair and will prevent innocent motorists from effectively fighting penalties. With police forces too often using speed cameras more to raise revenue than save lives, it is vital that people are given a fair opportunity to clear their names when given an unjust penalty charge; they shouldn't be financially punished if they are acquitted. Motorists will fight this to the hilt, and the Government is going to feel the full force of people power until it sees sense and backs down." Dominic Grieve QC MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and MP for Beaconsfield commented: "I entirely share your concern about these proposals and do not believe that it is right that the defendant should only receive a fraction of their legal costs back from central funds if they are acquitted. While there may be an argument for preventing a claim for grossly excessive costs, the Government's proposals appear to me to be unfair and wrong." Since launching the petition, it has gathered increasing support from members of parliament. After spending an afternoon at the Houses of Parliament with Shadow Minister for Access to Justice, Henry Bellingham MP, he made the decision to call for a committee to be selected to pray against the new cost recovery rules, with a statutory instrument to be implemented at the end of October. Mr. Henry Bellingham MP is confident of a vote being organised within the next two weeks saying: "It is a disgrace that Ministers apparently have no intention of debating this issue in the House to justify themselves. That is why we will try to force a vote and a debate on the new regulations." Mr. Henry Bellingham MP went on to say: "If the Conservatives win the next election they will certainly wish to review this issue as far from saving money, it might actually trigger numerous additional cost that would far exceed the government's target to save £20 million per year." PRESS RELEASE ENDS

Apologies Bernie, let me try and clarify it, I wanted opinions on the taking over by the Council of "control" of on-street parking. At present the only things they "control" are a few "free" car parks and the rip off one near the station. Is this something the Council can decide to do without consulting tax payers ? They have already proved that they can be downright devious and cynical by the charging unusually high rates for the train station car park when all other car parks in the town under their "control" are "free". I don't think they should be trusted to take over "control" of on-street car parking as well.

**Latest Update** OK guys and girls...... 2nd letter from Graham White... The more observant among you may have worked out, ... that despite ominous threats giving me 7 days before the end of my world!... they sent the second letter 14 days later !! Ok down to business.. Usual headings and legit looking legal stuff at the top about clients, "legal" reference numbers, bar code and telephone number. total amount due £90(they seem to have forgotten that the last missive added on lots of scary extras and had me up to ~£200+ !! ) It begins... FINAL WARNING TAKE NOTICE that despite many attempts to obtain payment from you, you have chosen to withhold settlement of the amount as stated above. We have already fulfilled all legal requirements in relation to commencing litigation. If you are in doubt as to the seriousness of this situation you should seek independent legal advice, as the consequences of litigation can be far reaching, such as: -Substantial legal costs and statutory interest being added to your debt -Your name being listed on the Register of Judgements affecting your chances of further credit in the future -Seizure of your assets by Bailiffs -An order to obtain information from judgement debtor It is your responsibility to repay this account to us immediately, and we put you on notice that we shall refer the matter in seven days. Please be assured this matter will not go away without solution or resolution. If you do not wish to incur the consequences of Court Action, you must pay the amount claimed immediately. If you cannot pay the full amount, or you have a valid defence to this claim, you should call this office without further delay. Yours Sincerely Michael Sobell Solicitor OK folks according to those in the know this is the last I'll hear from them.... let's hope so. I am rapidly losing my sense of humour over this, it is upsetting and worrying my wife, and after it is all over I may ask some of the experts on here to help me make a formal complaint to the police, there must be some law breaking going on here regarding intimidation, false pretences, menaces etc. Big thanks to all... watch this space.

Our local council will be "taking responsibility for" or "taking over control" of "on-street" parking when it passes from the police to them" shortly ... Is this something compulsory? is this supposedly a good idea? is this something taxpayers have been campaigning for? Have I missed something ? Pros and cons please..... The answer to the last question is probably yes, but any answers / comments from anyone else on the others would be helpful. We have at least 3 or 4 "free" ( we already pay for them in our council tax) public car parks in our town at present, the only one we have to pay extra ( ticket machines and wardens) for is the car park recently sited/built "near" the train station to blatantly rip off commuters, (commuters who are also taxpayers and who paid for it in the first place !) The price has been cynically and deliberately set at just below the rip off NCP prices at the train station. Comments please... Thanks

What about someone who regularly parks "opposite" my dropped driveway in a narrow road, therefore making entry and egress very bl**dy difficult ?. Oh, and by the way by parking opposite my driveway with 2 wheels up on the kerb!

I was "caught" for allegedly (I didn't ask for, nor was I shown any evidence) doing 101mph on a motorway (70mph limit), by a mobile camera on a motorway bridge over the road..... First offence. I got an £800 fine and a 14 day ban. PS Insurance went up from ~£200 a year to over ~£1200 because of the ban. PPS There are average speed cameras in the Limehouse Link tunnel but people regularly exceed the ludicrous 30mph limit... do they know something I dont ?

**UPDATE** As promised.... Received first letter from Graham White Solicitors. NOTICE OF INTENDED LEGAL ACTION You were written to by NCP LIMITED and their agent Roxburghe requesting the settlement of a Parking Contravention Charge Notice. Due to the absence of payment, or a valid appeal, our client has instructed us to proceed to legal action to recover the amount due. Therefore, it is a legal requirement to send a notice of INTENDED LITIGATION before legal proceedings are issued in the County Court. This letter fulfils this requirement. Take note: the costs associated with issuing a claim is as follows. Claim issue fee. £30.00 Solicitors costs for issuing claim. £50.00 Judgement Costs. £25.00 Warrant issue fee. £35.00 Solicitors Costs for Issuing Warrant. £2.25 Total additional costs £142.25 Any judgement registered against you could seriously affect your chances of obtaining credit in the future, as this information can be made available to any interested parties via the Register of Judgements, Orders and Fines, and remains on there for 6 years. In the event of a Judgement Order not being adhered to, we may instruct Bailiffs to attend at your address who are authorised to seize goods for sale at public auction in the amount claimed plus all Statutory Interest. Please contact us with your proposals for settlement within 7 days to avoid the possibility of this action. Yours Sincerely Michael Sobell All capitals and bold text is theirs....! So....let's recap, at my last update according to them I owed £90, this has now potentially risen to £232.25. I'm still holding my nerve and sticking with the advice on here, ...watch this space. PS Apparently these solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regualation Authority, are they not interested in websites like ours ?

Could I just interject here....as someone who is now reaching the latter stages of a dispute with a PCN, I have been taking the sage advice of this forum and ignoring them...because they are in the wrong! Am I now hearing that they DO TAKE PEOPLE TO COURT AND WIN ?