Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1612 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

My friend's son (Mr Smith junior) has received a pcn from ECP via an ANPR camera for staying approx. 20 mins too long on a car park in town. When the letter from EPC arrived, it was addressed to plain old Mr Smith (no forename or initials) so unfortunately it was Mr Smith (senior) who opened the letter thinking it was his.

 

 

What are the best options for Mr Smith to defend this charge since it appears that a £100 charge is excessive for 20 mins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Await the notice to keeper

Dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this is ANPR so letter through post should arrive no later than 14 days after the date of the event. What was the date of the parking event and when did the letter arrive? If late then no keeper liability and then Mr Smith senior can give the company all sorts of run around if they try and say otherwise.

If compliant then Mr Smith jr should challenge the charge using almost any reason he cares to such as the amount claimed must represent the losses caused by the breach of contract by the driver (dont say who the driver was) andin a free car park that is not owned or managed in any true sense of the word these losses will be zero sothe driverdoes not belive that the amount claimed is anything other than an unlawful penalty and puts it to strict proof of otherwise. should EPD fail to do this then they should either discontinue their claim or provide the details of the independent adjudicator their ATA uses.

They wont answer the challenge other than to say some generalised rubbish but a paper trail will have been started and the keeper then goes to the next stage and that costs the parking co money as well as creating the possibility of a procedural cock-up by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's had the NTK...

 

You've had experience of ecp haven't you chipper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes indeed. Well spotted armadillo71 and i think you helped me too.

 

 

I won that one and intend winning this one for Mr Smith too!

 

 

The only difference is the 1st run in was at a 'free' car park where, due to unforeseen circumstances i over stayed a few mins. This ticket was issue due to Mr Smith over staying in a car park where there were charges. It's only a small difference but I'm wondering if that puts this 'offence' into a different type of arena.

 

 

Any advice or help is always appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that means that any loss is easy to see;

 

Car parking charge- £1 per hr.

 

Driver pays for one hour but stays for two.

 

loss is £1....

 

As above, what are the dates?

 

Date of event and date NTK was received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Date of Issue = 11/09/15

 

 

Letter date = 22/09/15

 

 

Received Date = 25/09/15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Date of Issue = 11/09/15

 

 

Letter date = 22/09/15

 

 

Received Date = 25/09/15

 

And the date of the parking event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what that (POFA) means to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what that (POFA) means to me

 

If you click on the link in armadillo's signature, it will take you to the abbreviations stikky, Chipper. :)

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that good or bad from my point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that good or bad from my point?

 

Do you mean POFA? armadillo is your man, hopefully he'll be around later.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it means that the letter is sent in time for keeper liability should they wish to claim that. We need to see the wording on the signage to see if there is a breach of contract that would result in such a claim being viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are relying on para 9 of the PoFA, not para 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it means that the letter is sent in time for keeper liability should they wish to claim that. We need to see the wording on the signage to see if there is a breach of contract that would result in such a claim being viable.

 

Not sure this will be possible anytime soon, getting to the place isn't possible fir a few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then tell us the exact location of the site and we can streetmap it. If we cant see the signs from the entrance the chances of them successfully claiming are slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
then tell us the exact location of the site and we can streetmap it. If we cant see the signs from the entrance the chances of them successfully claiming are slim.

 

 

 

It's "Browncross Street, Salford". The signs on Google aren't clear (there are 2 car parks and the large sign refers to a different car park).

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS.

On Google street view of Browncross Street it looks like they've got a 'live' ticket being issued to a guy in a white van...poor soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post up a redacted copy of the NTK Chipper? It will not be POFA compliant I'll bet.

 

 

Which will mean no keeper liability, but the appeal process will have to be gone through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then one argument is that the signage is insufficient or confusing as the sign present refers to a different car park. The main sign says that failure to comply with the car park regulations will result in the issue of a £90 parking charge.... It doesnt say what these regulations are though so it is not a contract but an "invitation to treat" so it is down to the punter to make an offer, counteroffer or just not accept what is being offered.

At this stage just say that the signage isnt a contract so there has been no breach of contract to consider paying damages for. ( dont say who was driving at the time, leave it as an appeal by the keeper of the vehicle)

They will reject the appeal and tell you how to appeal to the independent adjudicator. If they dont do this within 35 days of getting your appeal then no keeper liability and they can go whistle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the letter (details blanked out).

 

 

If you need further info let me know.

 

 

Cheers for the help/info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NTK is not compliant with schedule 4 of the POFA.

 

As the new POPLA is an unknown quantity at the moment, then all points should be covered I believe.

 

No creditor identified is one.

 

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph*6(1)(b)*is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

 

(2)The notice must—.......

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

 

See what else you can spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally I would use one argument to appeal to EPC, anything else will be a waste as they are only going to reject and say that the notice is correctly issued under their T&C's, which menas nothing at all. Compare the letter you got with para 9 of the PoFa linked above and you will find a number of shortcomings that will be usable at your POPLA appeal. That will waste £27 of their money and even if POPLA are having a strange turn the paper trail will kill any chance of them making a successful civil claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

&
armadillo71

 

Thanks again for the advice.

 

 

I think that i will advise Mr Smith to go down the route of the charge being Punitive/Unfair/Unreasonable because to stay for 24 hours would only cost £6. If (when) they fail to accept that appeal then to go down the POPLA route. Something along the lines of:

 

 

Punitive / Unfair / Unreasonable. The parking charge of £100 is punitive and is therefore void. £100 is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of

contract or trespass. This would also apply to any costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order.

a. The £100 parking charge you are imposing is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations which gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e):

‘Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.’

Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) says:

‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer’

And 5(2), which states:

‘A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.’

b. Unreasonable The £100 parking charge you are imposing is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:

‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

Any opinions on this before i sent this off?

As always, your advice/help is appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...