Parking Charge Notice from NPC - ** CHARGE WITHDRAWN **

[BazzaS]

Advice, please, on a “parking charge notice” received on private land.

 

Firm: Cascade Financial Ltd T/A National Parking Control

 

Background: a relative is the Registered Keeper of a vehicle. They are also the driver (in this case). They use a car park, which has 2 areas : one ‘general access’ (littered with abandoned buggies, broken glass and other ‘rubbish’), and an ‘authorised parking only’ area. They parked in the ‘authorised only’ area, for which they don't have a permit, and came back to find a ‘parking charge notice’ (file attached) on the car.

 

They’ve asked me for my help for the best grounds to contest this. As you can see, this was in June (rest of date obscured), so we are currently within the first 28 days (is this the ‘NTD’ - notice to driver stage?).

 

The car park does have a sign up (3 photos attached), but I am unsure if it is visible from the car park entrance, and if that matters.

 

I’ve done some reading on the site, but would like to clarify my current understanding.

 

1. Am I correct in saying that it is best to not respond until they issue a Notice To Owner (NTO) which they issue to the Registered Keeper or is there an advantage in responding at the NTD stage?

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51388[/ATTACH]d.[ATTACH=CONFIG]51389[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]51387[/ATTACH]

 

2. If they issue a NTO outside of the time limits, we appeal on those grounds to POPLA?

 

3. If they issue a NTO within the time limits, we appeal to POLA as below…..

 

4. Is the signage a valid grounds for appeal, or are there better grounds? (do we claim no contract OR allow that there may have been a contract)

 

5. If there was no contract, do we claim that they can only recover their actual losses, and put them to proof that the ‘charge’ is their actual loss?

 

6. If there was a contract, do we state that they suggest they are claiming (specified/‘liquidated’) damages, but, in fact, as the £100 is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL), they are in fact an unenforceable penalty.

 

7. If they claim breach of contract / GPEOL can we maintain that the term is unenforceable, given the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (such as a holding a 'disproportionately high sum in compensation’ as unfair), and similarly that their charge (as a non-negotiable, imposed term) is “not reasonable” and thus voided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51390[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks,

Bazza

[SabreSheep]

Please convert your files to pdf.

GUIDE BELOW

 

follow this:

 

**you can post up images/letters by this method immediately..you don't need 10 posts**

.

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

.

************************* ************************* *******

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

************************* ************************* ***********

.

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

http://www.convert-jpg-to-pdf.net/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or http://www.freepdfconvert.com/

or

use http://www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though DONT USE BANK NAMES or CAGicon in the title

i'e Default notice DDicon-mm-yyyy

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

...

YOU DONT have to put a link to the attachment in the msg box..just upload it ..job done

.

[BazzaS]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51395[/ATTACH]

Advice, please, on a “parking charge notice” received on private land.

 

Firm: Cascade Financial Ltd T/A National Parking Control

 

Background: a relative is the Registered Keeper of a vehicle. They are also the driver (in this case). They use a car park, which has 2 areas : one ‘general access’ (littered with abandoned buggies, broken glass and other ‘rubbish’), and an ‘authorised parking only’ area. They parked in the ‘authorised only’ area, for which they don't have a permit, and came back to find a ‘parking charge notice’ (file attached) on the car.

 

They’ve asked me for my help for the best grounds to contest this. As you can see, this was in June (rest of date obscured), so we are currently within the first 28 days (is this the ‘NTD’ - notice to driver stage?).

 

The car park does have a sign up (3 photos attached), but I am unsure if it is visible from the car park entrance, and if that matters.

 

I’ve done some reading on the site, but would like to clarify my current understanding.

 

1. Am I correct in saying that it is best to not respond until they issue a Notice To Owner (NTO) which they issue to the Registered Keeper or is there an advantage in responding at the NTD stage?

 

2. If they issue a NTO outside of the time limits, we appeal on those grounds to POPLA?

 

3. If they issue a NTO within the time limits, we appeal to POLA as below…..

 

4. Is the signage a valid grounds for appeal, or are there better grounds? (do we claim no contract OR allow that there may have been a contract)

 

5. If there was no contract, do we claim that they can only recover their actual losses, and put them to proof that the ‘charge’ is their actual loss?

 

6. If there was a contract, do we state that they suggest they are claiming (specified/‘liquidated’) damages, but, in fact, as the £100 is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL), they are in fact an unenforceable penalty.

 

7. If they claim breach of contract / GPEOL can we maintain that the term is unenforceable, given the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (such as a holding a 'disproportionately high sum in compensation’ as unfair), and similarly that their charge (as a non-negotiable, imposed term) is “not reasonable” and thus voided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

 

Thanks,

Bazza

 

 

Reposting, with attachments as .pdf's as suggested.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51394[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]51393[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]51394[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]51393[/ATTACH]

[BazzaS]

[ATTACH]51396[/ATTACH]

 

The parking charge notice (again) ..... the .pdf in the post above may not be openable in all applications.

[f16]

BazzaS

You have a Notice To Driver (NTD)

Do nothing Wait.

You should receive the Notice To Keeper (NTK) between 29 and 56 days.

[f16]

Looking at the signs the smaller one is way too small

"Measuring" it off the "brickwork"

I make it 210mm X 290mm

 

Min. sign size is 450mm X 450mm.

 

Legal Crew will "tear this apart"

[armadillo71]

Advice, please, on a “parking charge notice” received on private land.

 

Firm: Cascade Financial Ltd T/A National Parking Control

 

Background: a relative is the Registered Keeper of a vehicle. They are also the driver (in this case). They use a car park, which has 2 areas : one ‘general access’ (littered with abandoned buggies, broken glass and other ‘rubbish’), and an ‘authorised parking only’ area. They parked in the ‘authorised only’ area, for which they don't have a permit, and came back to find a ‘parking charge notice’ (file attached) on the car.

 

They’ve asked me for my help for the best grounds to contest this. As you can see, this was in June (rest of date obscured), so we are currently within the first 28 days (is this the ‘NTD’ - notice to driver stage?).

 

Yes.

The car park does have a sign up (3 photos attached), but I am unsure if it is visible from the car park entrance, and if that matters.

 

I’ve done some reading on the site, but would like to clarify my current understanding.

 

1. Am I correct in saying that it is best to not respond until they issue a Notice To Owner (NTO) which they issue to the Registered Keeper

 

Correct.

or is there an advantage in responding at the NTD stage?

 

Only if you are not, or do not have access to, the reg keeper, or it is a hire car/company car.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51388[/ATTACH]d.[ATTACH=CONFIG]51389[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]51387[/ATTACH]

 

2. If they issue a NTO outside of the time limits, we appeal on those grounds to POPLA?

 

No. They have not followed schedule 4 of POFA 2012, so cannot claim keeper liability. They can only chase the driver. Who they do not know...

3. If they issue a NTO within the time limits, we appeal to POLA as below…..

 

 

You have to appeal to the PPC first, then get appeal rejected, which should come with a validation code to appeal to POPLA.

 

4. Is the signage a valid grounds for appeal, or are there better grounds? (do we claim no contract OR allow that there may have been a contract)

 

5. If there was no contract, do we claim that they can only recover their actual losses, and put them to proof that the ‘charge’ is their actual loss?

 

6. If there was a contract, do we state that they suggest they are claiming (specified/‘liquidated’) damages, but, in fact, as the £100 is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL), they are in fact an unenforceable penalty.

 

7. If they claim breach of contract / GPEOL can we maintain that the term is unenforceable, given the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (such as a holding a 'disproportionately high sum in compensation’ as unfair), and similarly that their charge (as a non-negotiable, imposed term) is “not reasonable” and thus voided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51390[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks,

Bazza

 

 

Update when you get the Notice To Keeper. ( or NTO )

[armadillo71]

Looking at their website, it is the flash park model of self ticketing.

 

 

Interesting take on the law(s) ;

 

 

http://issueparkingcharges.co.uk/main/legal-aspects

[BazzaS]

Looking at their website, it is the flash park model of self ticketing.

 

 

Interesting take on the law(s) ;

 

 

http://issueparkingcharges.co.uk/main/legal-aspects

 

I note their site says

"Issuing a parking charge notice is a legally acceptable and enforceable way for the land owner / occupier to enfore parking restrictions and collect damages for unauthorised use."

Are they then claiming that they are the land owner / occupier?. If not, does this not expose one of the flaws in their model?.

 

(I wonder how one 'occupies' a car park). There is case law from land law of what constitutes "in actual occupation", where parking a car in a garage was sufficient to occupy it (Kling v Keston Properties Ltd ): one might argue that there might have to be some exclusivity of parking? - thus the people who park there might become occupiers, (would they need exclusive access to a dedicated spot?) ; the question remains as to if the car park control company is an 'occupier'?, and if not do they have privity for a claim in trespass.

 

If it comes to it (e.g. POPLA appeal failing), should we pin them down to if they are claiming for damages for trespass, or damages for breach of contract. The first should fail as they aren't the land ownder/occupier?. The latter would fail under unreasonableness of the charge / not being a GPEOL?.

 

Looking further at their site (under FAQS / Costs)

HOW MUCH DO I RECEIVE PER PARKING CHARGE NOTICE?

We will pay you £12.00 for each PAID parking charge notice ticket upon receipt of an invoice. You can use our administration suite to monitor payments of your parking charge notices and invoice us each month for new payments

 

A further nail in the coffin of any claim that £100 is a GPEOL?.

 

Also, there are between 30 and 40 spaces on that site falling under the firm's desire to issue tickets. Under FAQS / signage on that site:

HOW MANY SIGNS WILL I NEED?

We recommend you place one sign every 10 yards (9 metres) or so within your parking area. This covers roughly 6 parking spaces.

 

There is one sign for all of the parking bays, by their own recommendations they should have 5-7?

Would this be fatal to their case (if they had one at all)?

 

One poster has deduced the sign size (from the brickwork?) and it may well be smaller than NPC recommend : is it worth going and measuring the one sign?

[ericsbrother]

You can measure but what it is all about is arguing whether the signage is adequately visible, legible and intelligible to form a contract with you. If the signs are too small, badly sited and full of gobbldeygook then the answer is no so the parking co cant claim for a breach.

who decides this? either POPLA or a judge, if the parking co are daft enough to want to go down that road.

For the moment, wait for NTO and then just appeal saying no contract formed because of inadequate signage and meaningless wording.

If they dont accept that (and they wont) appeal to POPLA with the code supplied (no code in 35 days then they lose the rights to claim from keeper) and quote same with detail about signage and also no loss to company and claim does not represent their loss or genuine pre-estimate of loss. This is generally the killer argument BUT I would always use as many other points as possible and ask for sight of contract with landowner or occupier that specifically consents to parking co claiming in their own name for breach.

[BazzaS]

Update (short version): they've withdrawn the 'charge' [ / speculative invoice ]

 

Can the site team please update the thread title to reflect this?.

 

Long version: Background;

NTK received early July, at just over 28 days after NTD. Pay £100, it will increase to £135, etc. etc.

"2nd warning letter" received 14 days later. Usual lots of red ink, "Legal Action will be taken....." "we have photographic evidence of this incident" etc. £135, will increase to £160, and "it is too late to pay the ticket at its original discounted rate"

 

Yeah!, like we would pay it anyhow (NOT)... Keeper's appeal sent.

Key points of appeal : No notification of grounds of charge (is it an action in trespass? action in contract??) as it doesn't say.

If in trespass, do they have locus standii?. If in contract: a) signage inadequate, b) a penalty rather than a GPEOL. If not in contract or trespass, what are their grounds for asking for a charge?.

 

If appeal refused, provide POPLA code. They should acknowledge appeal within 14 days, etc. etc. The appeal was sent via a tracked service, so we know they received it.

 

No notification of appeal decision then received, nor a POPLA code.

 

1/8/14 "Notice before legal proceedings received". Similar format to the previous notices, lots of red ink and scary "we will take legal action / we have photographic evidence": No mention of our appeal. £160 to pay (I think not!), rising to £185.

 

15/8/14 "Final notice before legal proceedings" received: same template as before, but now £185, rising to £210 , with the usual scary red ink, and dire warnings :"Failure to make payment will result in additional late payment charges. Non payment will result in a court summons, all credit reference agencies will also be advised to register the debt which may have an adverse effect on your ability to obtain future credit"

 

(Err, I don't think so.... because you won't get a CCJ, and if you register a debt that doesn't actually exist, you'll end up being sued for damages if it did unfairly affect our credit ability....)

 

So, we sent them a second (tracked) letter. Included was a copy of our first appeal, and proof from Royal Mail's site that it was received by them on 22/7/14..

We restated that we didn't know what their head of claim was, but that they hadn't established locus standii (for trespass), nor adequate signage to create a contract (for contract), and (of course) that their ever-escalating charges were a penalty and not a GPEOL, so we were happy to defend any court claim, we'd point out to the court they hadn't stated their head of claim nor dealt with the issues we'd raised, and so they hadn't abided by the CPR's requirements regarding pre-action protocols .........but hang on!

 

We'd sent an appeal. They hadn't dealt with it, and they have to allow us to go to POPLA before they can issue a county court claim (we quoted S54 and Schedule 4, of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012). They are definitely in breach of the pre-action protocols, and if they choose to go to court, we'll point this out to the court, so they have no chance of success, ohh, and we'll be going for our costs too, given the hopeless nature of their case and failure to abide by the over-riding principles of the CPR's.

 

They may have "photographic evidence of the incident", but we have photographic evidence of their inadequate signage, and evidence of them having received our appeal, with no sign of them acting on it ....... over to you, Cascade Finance / National Parking Control. I'm sorry that we can't match your usage of scary red ink, and dire prophesies of ever increasing charges - so here are some statutes and case law instead ......

 

Result: letter received today (attached, in case someone wants a laugh). "Charge" .... "cancelled". Their letter is riddled with typos.

 

They apologise for the "delay of your response" (err, no, it was their response which was delayed, not ours).

They have been experiencing "technical faults on their systems" (what a reassurance, since until then we had just been thinking that they were just ignoring appeals and sending the letters out to scare people into paying up when they didn't have to!)

They have "carefully investigated" (hopefully with more care than they seem to have taken with their letter!).

 

I think I am reassured by them stating "you will no further corrisponced from National Parking Control will occur as your notice as been fully removed from the system"

 

I would be more reassured if they had stated "you will RECEIVE no further CORRESPONDENCE from National Parking Control as your notice HAS been fully removed"

 

or even "no further CORRESPONDENCE from National Parking Control will occur as your notice HAS been fully removed, but their grammar and syntax seem about as reliable as their (apparent, lack of) compliance with the law and their responsibilities (you know, to consider appeals, to involve POPLA, to not rake up charges associated with vague yet dire threats....)

 

They would "like to take this opportunity for raising valid points of the car park"

One has to wonder if they actually wanted to "like to take this opportunity TO THANK US for raising valid points REGARDING the car park" ; but it is hard to tell from the appaling standard of their communication.

 

To finish off, their employee JW felt that this may have caused us "come inconvenience".

I suspect she meant "some inconvenience", but its so hard to tell when it is one of so many errors.

 

One has to wonder if they are using the typewriting monkeys (that might one day produce the works of Shakespeare), or if they have been held in reserve to do the proof reading of the letters they are sending out.

 

Either way, if someone needs a job, and has even minimal competence and communication skills, why not write in to Cascade Financial, pointing out how much better you could do than their current staffing .......

 

[Their (dreadful standard for a professional communication) letter, attached]

[armadillo71]

Well done!

 

That letter is astonishing...

[honeybee13]

Thread title amended, Bazza. Well done and thank you for reporting back.

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

not astonishing when you consider the previous job role of the average employess. They were employed to clamp vehicles and carry a demeanour that dissuaded you from arguing your rights with them.

[f16]

 

Either way, if someone needs a job, and has even minimal competence and communication skills, why not write in to Cascade Financial, pointing out how much better you could do than their current staffing .......]

 

Thanks for the "Heads up" on that "Job" !!!

I'm applying now . ... NOT

 

Well Done

[DragonFly1967]

I'm tempted to apply in a homage to Robin Williams.....

 

 

"I AM JOB"

[citizenB]

Thanks for the update Bazza.. It is always good to start the day with a chuckle

[DBC]

Why don't you send that letter back, but corrected and marked like a piece of school work? What do you reckon - three out of ten for effort?

[citizenB]

Why don't you send that letter back, but corrected and marked like a piece of school work? What do you reckon - three out of ten for effort?

 

 

That sounds overly generous to me, DBC

[BazzaS]

Why don't you send that letter back, but corrected and marked like a piece of school work? What do you reckon - three out of ten for effort?

 

Hey, that's an idea ..... I could enclose a (speculative?) invoice for "marking costs".

If I used red pen for the corrections, lots of red ink on the invoice and said "we have photographic evidence!" : might that convince them?

[andydd]

..and put 'Must do better' at the bottom, perhaps you will even raise a smile or chuckle at their end, after all its made some of us here laugh