NCP towed my car from train car park for non payment of private parking tickets

[jpm321]

Hi

Yesterday whilst parked in a train station car park my car was removed by NCP

for non payment of parking tickets (private invoices) however when i called them to tell them i was not the driver at the time they are saying im the reg keeper and am responsble.

called the manager last night and she told me i will not get the car back untill the tickets are paid, I told her thet i felt that was an unlawfull approcach and they have removed the car illegally she would not listen still claiming i never told them who WAS driving at the time

I still dont have the car and need some advice, if any one out there ??

 

[my-spirit-soars-free]

You don't need to tell them who was driving, there is no requirement in law to do that.

 

Basically, they can't take your car for a civil debt.

 

I would be inclined to see a solicitor, this one is so beyond what a private company can do that you need proper help - and I would be inclined to charge NCP for the solicitors fees, hire of a replacement car, etc!

 

Just a thought - do you have access to free legal help with your insurance?

[green_and_mean]

Had you paid on the day it was towed?

[jpm321]

Hi

Thanks for the quick replies

 

Yes i paid yesterday.

 

I have just called them and told them that its unlawfull for them to remove and keep my vehicle, and the law regarding PPC

 

Thyey havent really commented other than they are going to speak to the NCP area manager responsable for removing the car

however i did inform them that i will be persuing cost incurred for loss of use and treavel etc

 

they are calling me back

 

 

wonder if i found out where the car was and went back with the police they would support me (probably not )

[Cardiff Devil]

It might be worth contacting the police on the basis that you feel that your car was unlawfully removed by a private entity for an alleged debt that is nothing to do with you.Keep all receipts for any expenses that you incur in additional travel costs (taxi fares etc), you may need to file a civil claim against the company later if they don't reimburse you.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

Normally, it is not a great idea to talk to them by phone, as you won't have a record.

 

There are websites that allow you to record any call you make - one I know of is called rectel - and you may want to use one of these, just so you have a record.

[Jamberson]

If they have taken your car unlawfully, and it looks like they have, what are you waiting for? Your car has been taken without consent - it's a crime - report it to the police and give them the details of the thieves.

[green_and_mean]

If they have taken your car unlawfully, and it looks like they have, what are you waiting for? Your car has been taken without consent - it's a crime - report it to the police and give them the details of the thieves.

 

Its not quite that simple since legally it has neither been TWOC'd nor Stolen, taken without consent relies on the vehicle being taken to be used as a conveyance which it hasn't, theft relies on the vehicle being taken to permanently deprive the owner of its use which is not the case either.

[sailor sam]

Its not quite that simple since legally it has neither been TWOC'd nor Stolen, taken without consent relies on the vehicle being taken to be used as a conveyance which it hasn't, theft relies on the vehicle being taken to permanently deprive the owner of its use which is not the case either.

 

What about;

A person is guilty of the offence of vehicle interference if he interferes with a motor vehicle or trailer or with anything carried in or on a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention that an offence specified in subsection (2) below shall be committed by himself or some other person.

 

2)The offences mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

(a)theft of the motor vehicle or trailer or part of it;

(b)theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer; and

©an offence under section 12(1) of the M1Theft Act 1968 (taking and driving away without consent);

and, if it is shown that a person accused of an offence under this section intended that one of those offences should be committed, it is immaterial that it cannot be shown which it was.

[green_and_mean]

What about;

A person is guilty of the offence of vehicle interference if he interferes with a motor vehicle or trailer or with anything carried in or on a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention that an offence specified in subsection (2) below shall be committed by himself or some other person.

 

2)The offences mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

(a)theft of the motor vehicle or trailer or part of it;

(b)theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer; and

©an offence under section 12(1) of the M1Theft Act 1968 (taking and driving away without consent);

and, if it is shown that a person accused of an offence under this section intended that one of those offences should be committed, it is immaterial that it cannot be shown which it was.

 

Interference only applies if its with the intention of stealing the car etc if for example I broke in to let a dog out in hot weather thats not interference.

[sailor sam]

Ok, let's cut to the chase. If the car has been removed by a private concern without a court order against a debt, then in my book, it is taking without the owners consent. Otherwise anyone could go around takeing people's property who owed them money. Now forgive me if i'm wrong, but I thought that's what the civil court is there for. NCP would need a court order to remove the car legally.

[green_and_mean]

Ok, let's cut to the chase. If the car has been removed by a private concern without a court order against a debt, then in my book, it is taking without the owners consent. Otherwise anyone could go around takeing people's property who owed them money. Now forgive me if i'm wrong, but I thought that's what the civil court is there for. NCP would need a court order to remove the car legally.

 

There is no offence of just taking something without the owners consent. There are such thing as 'liens' which allow a person to hold onto possesions until a debt is paid, the law is very complex on such matters its not as straight forward as it seems.

[jpm321]

There is no offence of just taking something without the owners consent. There are such thing as 'liens' which allow a person to hold onto possesions until a debt is paid, the law is very complex on such matters its not as straight forward as it seems.

 

 

but i guess that only applies if the Owner owes the Debt?

[green_and_mean]

but i guess that only applies if the Owner owes the Debt?

 

If I took my wifes car to a garage and they did £200 of work in good faith would they be entitled to keep the car until the debt had been settled even though she didn't request the work done herself? Or your car is parked at an airport long stay car park for two weeks you turn up and tell them you have come to collect your car, they say thats £100 you say sorry my son left it here you will have to bill him.....should they let you drive off? Like I said its not that simple.

[Jamberson]

but i guess that only applies if the Owner owes the Debt?

Yes indeed. It may not have been specifically twocked, but if they are refusing to give it back unless the owner pays them, it's theft. It's as if I stole your watch and told you you could have it back as soon as you pay me £50. I've still stolen it, regardless of the fact that I'm holding it to ransom.

[green_and_mean]

Yes indeed. It may not have been specifically twocked, but if they are refusing to give it back unless the owner pays them, it's theft. It's as if I stole your watch and told you you could have it back as soon as you pay me £50. I've still stolen it, regardless of the fact that I'm holding it to ransom.

 

Its only stolen if you intend to keep the watch, if you left the watch with me for repairs costing £50 its not theft if I refuse to return it.

[jpm321]

Just received a call from NCP saying im not getting the car back untill i pay

they say this is clearly marked on their T&Cs that they hold the right to hold a vehicle untill payment is made

 

I did inform them that this only relates to the person entering the car park at the time and entering the contract with NCP NOT the reg keeper

 

they siad as i was the driver yesterday im responsible , even though yesterday i had bought a ticket

[sailor sam]

As usual, we are getting in to a complex and un-helpfull debate here. Using Liens is normally for having reparis done to bulidings ect where by the bulider may remove materials which have not been paid for. So in effect, they were never the property of the debter in the first place. The same applies to any labour or parts used to repair a car which the debter may have left in the possession of the repairer in the first place. the garage would be entitled to retain the car untill the repairs had been paid for.

 

In this case the car has been 'taken' in payment of an 'invoice' or 'invoices' issued against the RK for a 'service' which the RK has allegedly not paid for. We all know that these 'invoices' are in fact 'penalties' which cannot be legally recovered under English law using the courts because a private concern has no powers to issue a 'fine' or 'penalty'. Therefore, I would suggest that it would not be appropiate to rely on liens in this case. In a nut shell, the car cannot be legally taken by a private concern without a court order. I would suggest that instead of continuing this 'argument' which is not helpfull to the OP at all, that he consults a solicitor although I think that the police should also give an opinion on this. In anyevent, I think NCP have well and truly over stepped the mark on this one and could prove costly for them.

[sailor sam]

Just received a call from NCP saying im not getting the car back untill i pay

they say this is clearly marked on their T&Cs that they hold the right to hold a vehicle untill payment is made

 

I did inform them that this only relates to the person entering the car park at the time and entering the contract with NCP NOT the reg keeper

 

they siad as i was the driver yesterday im responsible , even though yesterday i had bought a ticket

 

Their T&Cs can say what they like but it dosn't mean that they are legal. I suggest you consult a solicitor. They are holding you car against un-enforcable invoices. To persue their claims would need a court order in my opinion.

[jpm321]

they now saying the forwarding my complaint to their legal team

and they will call me

 

they really do stand by hte claim that the can claim from the owner

 

here are the T&Cs the keep refering too

You acknowledge that you enter into this contract with us on the basis

of these Terms and Conditions not only on behalf of yourself, but also on

behalf of any passengers in the vehicle and the legal owner of the vehicle.

This means that we may enforce these Terms and Conditions against

you or any passenger or the legal owner of the vehicle. Equally, you, any

passenger and the legal owner of the vehicle can enforce these Terms and

Conditions against us.

 

 

[sailor sam]

They can only take action against the person who has made the contract with them (i.e. the person who drove the car onto the carpark). I've read their T&Cs and although it states thay 'reserve the right to move your car within the car park' and 'reserve the right to drive you car onto a public haighway', it dosn't state that they 'reserve the right to remove your car in order to hold it against a debt'. As I've said before, these 'charges' are un-inforceable anyway unless they are proportinate to their losses or damages they have incurred from you parking there. That is all they are entiltled to claim for legally through the small claims court, they cannot persue a 'penalty' or 'fine'. I say again, consut a solicitor who specializes in debt collection and contractual law.

[jpm321]

Thank you will try find one now

[gerson]

Hi,

 

Only the driver of the vehicle may enter into the 'contract'. How the heck do they intend to issue any kind of claim against a passenger???? Or even the owner or any other person not present????

 

Sounds like a phrase from the dept forum 'valid even if not read by you'

 

I thought even with contract law that you cannot enter into a binding contract on behalf of someone else unless you have been given specific proxy powers to cover such?

 

G

[jpm321]

its getting frustrating now no return calls from NCP

 

cant find a solicitor to adise

 

only one i found told me to send them a stat declaration

 

dont know wether to find the recory company and go down there and call police, but i think they will side with NCP as no knolwedge of the law in these circumstances

[Al27]

How much money do they want? If it's more than £270, you're best off paying it to county court and requesting an injunction.

 

I would ask for the following in writing:

 

• the nature of the alleged outstanding debts

• a breakdown of the alleged outstanding debts

• the terms and conditions and/or laws they allege allows them to seize your vehicle

• the law they rely upon that enables them to make the Registered Keeper of a vehicle liable for their alleged debts

 

Being armed with this information, or being able to demonstrate they refuse to co-operate, would be useful for the injunction form.

 

Otherwise, just pay and sue (by credit card preferably).