F1MOS
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by F1MOS
-
Also.... here is the answer from Breckland Council for PP questions asked. BFOI 007352 BDC FOI Response.docx
-
Gents, A question, the contract that NTC supposedly has with Connaught Hall (attached) details that they will comply with the BPA Code of Practice. However, NTC notified me that this is not the case. Can this be followed up with the BPA at all? I mentioned this in the country court also but this was ignored too. NTC Con Hall Contract.pdf
-
all clear..... thank you.. I will start this process now. Much appreciated to all. I will keep you updated.
-
I tend to agree with your comments as he said he was very familiar with NTC as soon as the Claimant's advocate started talking. I quoted the requirements of the BPA code of conduct that stipulate that detail the signage and the requirements of this...I quoted both BPA and IPC CoP fro Grace Periods. The 3 differing entities made him think for a minute especially as the entity that has the contract with the Hall was disolved in 2013 and therefore unable to enter into a contract...all were disregarded. He was happy with the signage as "I know the car park very well". I explained that the signage must be clear for people who not know the car park and in any event must comply with the the CoP's and legislative requirements. "I am happy with the signage is sufficient"! and so it went on. Can his ruling be appealed even though he refused the right to appeal?
-
He did say he was very familiar with NTC on numerous occasions.
-
Guys, The Judge today ruled in favour of the Claimant (NTC) however a max of the PCN and court fee (£25). However, during the hearing he agreed that the Grace Period should be 10 minutes but disputed the fact that I had returned to the car within 10 minutes. He said because I hadn't brought evidence from the Dr Surgery that I was collecting a prescription, the PCN was still valid. He deemed that there was adequate signage despite the fact the signs do not mention the Dr Surgery as he knew the car park very well. He deemed that the 3 different companies named on the PCN, the Court Claim form and the contract with Connaught Hall were the same company despite one company being dissolved in 2013 and therefore to legally enter into a contract with Connaught Hall in 2017. I mentioned the non compliance with the IPC Code of Conduct and the BPA Code of Conduct, especially around signage and planning permission. The judge said that there was no evidence to suggest that the Claimant hadn't applied for planning permission and therefore disregarded these items. I requested an appeal on all of the above which he refused. Is it me or is this slightly strange that a judge can disregard all of the above?
-
Guys, I have my court case tomorrow (1st July) and I have gone through the bundle supplied by the Claimant (NTC). They provided a limited version of the supposed contract with the Hall but the Company who holds that contract has a different registered address that the one that issues tickets. This company was disolved in 2013 so no longer exists and therefore their contract which is supposedly dated for 03/01/2017 is not valid. The company that issues tickets is not a registered company on Companies House. The County Court Claim form also detailed a different address and is therefore a different entity that the NTC that issued the PCN. There is also no evidence of planning permission for the signs etc.
-
ericsbrother, that is unbelievable. How on earth does something like this happen!? Anyway, I will use the signage planning permission issue. I haven't found out if they have paid the court fee yet so this still may not happen. Thanks again.
-
Thank you. I have the codes of practice and all of that with regards to grace periods. My back up however is that NTC may not actually be allowed to issue tickets. There are doubts with regards to whether there was a contract in place, if there was who was that with coupled with the fact that they have installed the signs and machines with no planning permission. However i am still trying to find out what legislation covers the planning permission requirement.
-
Yes I have read quiet a bit but its hard to follow when trying to determine if these are compulsory when it comes to information and disclosure of documentation.
-
I have called and got no answer but I will keep trying. Court date is 1st July. For the letter i sent under CPR 31:14 where the solicitors haven't replied, are they legally required to reply to this?
-
The Claimant must pay the fee by 1600 03/06/19. I need to submit all documents fourteen days before the hearing.
-
Good day Everyone, I now have a date for this case in Norwich country court. The Claimant (NTC) have not replied to my letter detailed in comment #5 which requests information from the Claimant. They have sent a letter reiterating that I was in violation of their terms and conditions. My question is....what is the legislation that requires planing permission for the signs and machines to be installed? I will try and get information from the Hall regarding previous violations of the Claimant in the car park. Thanks
-
Wow......how on earth have you managed to get all of this!?! When I parked there there was no camera but I have no idea when there was one there previously.
-
ericsbrother thank you. I will ask the Doctors as suggested. Thank you so much, much appreciated.
-
I have photos with the time stamp confirming the times and my emails to NTC confirming this at the time.
-
I informed NTC that they had not complied with the BPA Code of Practice and got told... "We are not required to adhere to the BPA code of practise and any points raised thereafter are not relevant to this parking charge. We are satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly and following your conduct at the time the charge was issued we are not prepared to look at the appeal again. This is notwithstanding the fact you have not provided any new information on which an appeal should be based." With regards to the NTC Warden, NTC said "The operative is not required to discuss the matter with you and always carries photo ID as required by the Code of practise." I asked NTC for a copy of their contract between the landowners and themselves but they failed to provide this. However, NTC are members of IPC and must comply wit their Code of Practice which clearly states that predatory tactics must not be used in enforcing parking (Clause 14), Grace periods must be applied (clause 15). Could this be used as defence?
-
thank you very much.
-
Thank you. I will confirm when its all done.
-
Name of Claimant - Norwich Traffic Control Limited Claimants Solicitors - BW Legal, Enterprise House, Leeds Date of Issue - 07/01/19 Reason of Claim - 1.The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a PCN issued on 12/05/17 at 1115 at Connaught Hall Attleborough. The PCN Relates to Mercedes under registration XXXXX. 2.The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the PCN but the defendant failed to do so. 3.Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstsanding liability. 4.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 0.02 from 12/05/17 to 04/01/19 being an amount of £12.06. 5.The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions. total amount £247.06 Please let me know if you require anything else. Many thanks,
-
Hello, I would be grateful for some support on a PCN issued by Norwich Traffic Control on 2017. The car park is also for a DR's surgery that I was attending. I parked my car in a car park that was being enforced by NTC on 12/05/17 The entrance for the car park is only wide enough for one car so if you are maneuvering to allow another car to pass, you are not able to read the signs as you enter the car park. Upon parking my car, I went over to the pay and display machine to see if there was anything reading the Dr's surgery, there wasnt, just the usual generic sign. I then went into the Dr's surgery to ask them about the pay and display. They informed me that there were allocated parking spaces and the sign detailing this was only at the entrance for the car park. They also said that I wasnt the only person not to see the signs. I went back out side to move my car however I was met by a NTC Warden who had already issued a parking ticket. I had been away from the car for 1 minute. I explained to the NTC warden and the fact they must have seen me go into the Dr's.... I was informed that it wasnt her problem. Later that day I emailed NTC and explained the situation, they informed me that ticket was still valid. I appealed via the IAS and highlighted that i believed NTC had not complied with the Code of Practice for the IPC as follows; IPC Code of Practice Part B, Clause 2 – Signage Clause 13 – Professionalism Clause 14 – Predatory Tactics Clause 15 – Grace Periods BPA Code of Practice Clause 9 – Professionalism Clause 12 – Requesting registered keeper details Clause 13 – Grace Period The IAS dismissed the apoeal by stating the following; "Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed." I have today received a County Court Claim from NTC's solicitors claiming £246.06 for the parking ticket. I still believe that NTX did not comply with the Code of Practice for all of the reasons detailed above however I would be grateful for anyone's assistance with this. NTC are notorious for things like this and there are numerous complaints about their methods of operation. Photos.pdf
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS