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

[sailor sam]

Jpm, in post #93 you said you had found a solicitor... what did they have to say?

[Zamzara]

Re: theft

 

I agree with green and mean that it is right to carefully analyze this and not to assume. But I disagree with the conclusion.

 

Firstly, intention to permenantly deprive. A copmpany who intends to keep the property indefintely until the owner pays a ransom clearly does intend this, once s. 6 of the Theft Act is considered:

 

A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights

That seems pretty straightforward and was applied in R v Marshall where Marshall was convicted of theft of railway tickets despite the fatc that he knew the company would eventually get them back at considerable expense.

 

Then there is the problem of dishonesty. This was defined in R v Ghosh and is known as the Ghosh test:

 

1. Was the act one that an ordinary decent person would consider to be dishonest? If so :
   
2. Must the accused have realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest (the subjective test)?
   

There is also a complete nullification in s.2 of the Act if the accuses honestly believed he had a right to deprive the other of the property.

 

This appears to be of some help to impounders of goods, in that their initial appropriation may well be honest, so that no theft is committed at that point.

 

However, s.3 of the Act defines appropriation as the asuumption of any of the rights of the owner. In R v Morris this was held to mean any single right, such as touching the property and would include refusing to allow the owner to drive the vehicle away, for example. It is clear from s.3 and from Morris that appropriation is an ongoing act, and does not mean just the initial appropriation.

 

So once it has been patiently explained to the impounder that they have no legal right to do so, their continued refusal to return the goods will be a further appropriation and will amount to theft if they can no longer hold an honest belief they are entitled to do so.

 

This is why if I were to go into Curry's and remove a large TV without their consent as satisfaction of some claimed debt they owe me, the police will attend and explain to me that I cannot do this. If I attempt to continue the police, would then arrest me as this is prima facie dishonest (even if it did not start out that way) as it is now incredible that I could still hold an honest belief in the honesty of my actions. Even if I were ultimately to be acquitted, there is clearly enough for the police to arrest at this point and return the goods to the owner.

 

The reason the police will not intervene in parking issues is not because they cannot, but because they have a misguided policy never to do so, and this should be challenged.

[jpm321]

Jpm, in post #93 you said you had found a solicitor... what did they have to say?

 

Basically confirms everything that has been said on here and advised me to take them to court for tort (interfering with goods ) act 1977

[postggj]

dont know if this has been asked

 

is the vehicle on finance

[brassnecked]

If it is on finance would NCP rely on one of those "The driver by parking binds everyone with a proprietary interest in the vehicle, " like some of the PPCs that attempts to bind RK AND a finance company into their alleged contract?

[jpm321]

dont know if this has been asked

 

is the vehicle on finance

No, no finance

[Surfer01]

Surely the debt can only be a few £'s, i.e. £10 the charges that were not paid for parking as they cannot pursue their penalty charges that they impose which is not written into any law or regulation. How can you remove and impound a vehicle worth X amount for a paltry £10?

[brassnecked]

Surely the debt can only be a few £'s, i.e. £10 the charges that were not paid for parking as they cannot pursue their penalty charges that they impose which is not written into any law or regulation. How can you remove and impound a vehicle worth X amount for a paltry £10?

 

We know that, the courts know that , but obviously NCP know better, and should be spanked accordingly, as their action is totally disproportionate to any losses. they are digging themselves a very deep hole imho

[Al27]

And they still haven't stated what they think they're owed and why.

 

You can't just take a car and say "we'll let you know how much you owe us sometime in the next few weeks."

[jpm321]

And they still haven't stated what they think they're owed and why.

 

You can't just take a car and say "we'll let you know how much you owe us sometime in the next few weeks."

 

They have only sent me an email as above claiming the car was banned due to old tickets about 1 year old , and they are holding it as LIEN for the debt

However I have never received or acknowledged a ban , there is no mention of LIEN in the T&Cs at the entrance or on their website

Also they have not since taking the car confirmed how much they require or where the car was , I had to find it myselve

 

I have requested a copy of the banning notice since they took the car and have not seen it , so will raise in the court why they haven't provided it, my guess is it doesn't exist

 

The court has served the papers to them now so I'm awaiting their defence which I think will be the LIEN,

[sailor sam]

Any news on this yet?

[jpm321]

Hi

 

NCP have ackknoledged service of the claim and have said they will defned all of it , its now gone to their solictors.

 

Recovery guy hasnt responded yet but the final day is today

 

nothing else, its a waiting game now just need to see their defence

[Al27]

Did you pay £270 for the injunction?

[jpm321]

no was £175

[green_and_mean]

So what happens if they just ignore you, how does the injunction work?

[jpm321]

I asked court for judgement to compel release of the vehicle and costs and damages

so i guess that if they ignore me i ask for defaiult judgement

 

however NCP havent ignored they have responded so i need to now wait for them to file a defence

[Al27]

Ah good. I was worried you'd made a normal court claim. Why on earth are they being so slow though? Could be bad luck with the load in that particular court.

 

I understand if they ignore the injunction paperwork the court has a few options. They may grant the injunction or summon both parties for a preliminary hearing.

 

Ignoring any granted injunction would put that party in contempt of court.

[jpm321]

I did send a covering letter to the court with the original claim asking for a fixed date at ASAP however they replied back saying the district judge refused the list the case at this time.

 

I did send a fax and another letter on Weds of this week asking judge to review as im without vehicle and the claim for damages is getting higher by the day , no reply yet but its only 2 days

 

seems they now have 2 weeks left for defence, I was told the court could impose injunction within days but maybe i filled wrong claim for that

[jpm321]

Maybe court does have a biig list....... for this bunch !

 

as the recovery guy showed me a hit list he has for cars with outstanding pccns on

he just drives around the NCP railway carparks picking up cars on the list even if they , like mine have a valid ticket for that day !

[sailor sam]

I don't care what anyone says, this is not legal. A private company cannot hold you car (or anything else for that matter) for ransom against a debt without a court order. Personally i would be spaeking to my MP about the way the police have (not) handled this. What NCP should do is to go through the civil court process like anyone else to persue the 'debt'.

[BASFORDLAD2]

Unfortunately and no criticism of the OP but this whole thing has been done arse about tit...

[brassnecked]

Unfortunately and no criticism of the OP but this whole thing has been done arse about tit...

 

Agreed, the unlawful removal has been glossed over and NCP has played pocket billiards with OP. The tardiness of how the issue has progressed is rather worrying, The sense of urgency is that of a cataleptic sloth, and the application for an injunction compelling return of the motor should have been priority one imho

 

I wonder how NCP would see themselves if as has been suggested in post #144by jpm321 they have a guy trawling the car parks and lifting motors like they did to OP.

 

What if OP had sold the car, and it even had been changed at DVLA. Would they still try to retain it? Bailiffs doing this are getting their knuckles rapped, but NCP don't even have the sanction of a court order to lift any motor.

Edited October 23, 2011 by brassnecked

[Al27]

Come on guys - what else could have been done?

 

The police weren't interested and pursuing them wouldn't have got the car back.

 

Before court you're expected to try and sort things out and NCP have shot themselves with both barrels with the manner of their behaviour.

 

An injunction has been sought, but for some reason this particular court is being extremely slow. Perhaps because of a large workload. Injunction hearings usually happen within 7 days.

 

At the end of the day, I would say NCP could be looking at substantial damages. Even if the car is released, through the injunction or otherwise, a subsequent claim could be running into a couple of grand.

[jpm321]

Have just called the court and they confirmed that the recovery guy has not filed an AoS

therefore i can apply for default Judgement against him, not sure what that would acheive as NCP have filed theirs

 

also sent letter to trading standards

[Al27]

Apply away! Presumably the judgement is for what you required - for the return of the vehicle.

 

Once you have it you can turn up with the paperwork and call the police if he won't comply (you may have to be creative on the phone - they'd come to prevent a breach of the peace). I would go down with some friends.

 

Get the car back and then we can turn to getting you money+damages from NCP.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Al27