Jump to content


NCP windscreen PCN - Stanmore LU Car Park - not within lines - now various ZZPS-WRIGHT HASSALL Letters


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1696 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, Appreciate some advice on my situation.

 

I am the keeper and owner but was not the driver for the following situation which I have ignored totally upto now.

 

Circumstances of the charge and correspondence to date

 

February – driver parked at London underground car park run by NCP.

Paid for ticket but did not park correctly within the marked bay so Parking charge notice issued for £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. This PCN ignored.

 

Forty days later I get the NTK letter from NCP which I don’t respond to.

 

Thirty days later get letter from ZZPS stating the details of the parking and advising that I should now pay £160. This letter ignored.

 

Twenty days later a further letter from ZZPS states that if the charge is not paid then they shall pass to WH and the charge will increase by £30 to £190 payable. This letter ignored.

 

Forty days later get FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM from WH stating that the balance is now £196 and if I do not pay within 14 days of this letter they will commence County Court proceedings.

 

 

I am still within the 14 days of this letter and have made no response.

 

So I am the keeper and owner but not the driver who I believe is the only party liable to pay the charge??.

 

My choices as I see it are to either

 

 

  1. Continue to ignore. or
  2. Respond to WH letter stating that I was not the driver and they should seek the driver. I know who the driver is but am I obliged to disclose this?? Can I ask for a fee for disclosing this information??

Would like some advice on how each course of action might develop from here.

Regards

Brassica

Link to post
Share on other sites

zzzps/WH same office same printer same PC.

you've ignored to date

[p'haps not the best thing to do since 2012 turn around]

 

 

but as you've done so so far

continue to ignore IMHO.

just not a claimform.

 

 

read the letter properly

I think you'll see it does NOT say WILL commence anything

they cant

only NCP can.

 

can I gather this was a windscreen PCN?

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Thanks for replies chaps.

 

Yes WH letter states that "we anticipate being instructed to commence County Court proceedings against you without further notice."

 

PCN was affixed to the windscreen?

 

What about the naming of the driver - The NTK asked me to do this if I was not the driver and this was 90 days ago. Does this length of time without me responding count against me or not??

Link to post
Share on other sites

these are speculative invoices

they can make all the silly time limits they like

doesn't mean anything.

 

 

so this was def a windscreen ticket ..you've put a ? above

 

 

do you still have it?

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

we don't know which one

sorry we haven't asked that.

 

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your replies. I need help please Raykay to understand your information

 

from the list in your link Stanmore LU car park is covered by the railway byelaws. So you said in post #7 that the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply and neither does keeper liability.

 

Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) was complied with by the driver as a ticket was purchased so it appears that no penalty is due. The car park ticket was paid for but the car was "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay space". No mention of this in the byelaw.

 

Can I continue to ignore the request for payment in confidence because the byelaws apply and do not cover the reason of "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay space". Meaning there is no claim on me or the driver?.

 

Not sure I understand your point about keeper liability does not apply?.

 

 

Regs

Brassica

Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the ticket CAREFULLY

it does say PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE

it says Parking charge notice.

and nothing you have received mention the byelaws.

 

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have seen, there is no mention of parking within markings of a space in the byelaws.

 

The car park is 'managed' by NCP on behalf of TfL. NCP 'invent' their own rules for the use of the car park and issue 'notices' for not complying with those rules.

 

Prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, only the driver was liable for their claims - as that was the person who allegedly broke their rules.

 

Sch. 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act gave the power - under certain circumstances - to claim from the keeper if the driver was not known.

 

Land mentioned in Sch.4, s.3, is not covered by the act. S, 3© is land subject to statutory control - which includes Stanmore Station Car park as it is subject to byelaws. As is many railway company, airport company, harbour company etc. land.

 

If NCP know who the driver was, they can claim from the driver for breaking their rules, but not from the keeper. In your case, only TfL can for breaking their byelaws, and that would be case in the magistrate's court and there is a time limit of six months.

 

NCP know that, which is why all they, and their partners, can do is keep sending letters - increasing the amount each time, and various threats of county court action and County Court Judgements, and sometimes a reduced amount, hoping that the person will pay.

 

So, if the driver is not identified, NCP have no authority to claim from the keeper for breaking their rules.

TfL would need to take action within 6 months if was considered to be a byelaw offence (which it doesn't appear to be).

Link to post
Share on other sites

WH cant issue an LBA

only NCP can do court

and they don't

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So to finish the 'Formal letter of claim' I have from WH can be ignored - in your opinion?

 

I think so, it is a letter before claim, rather than a letter before action, and they only 'anticipate' county court action - another ruse to worry people enough to pay.

 

If you do reply, don't sign the letter, just print your name - you never know what other of their documents your signature may appear on!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I have spent the best part of an hour trying to find out if this site is covered by any bylaws. Fail!

 

What I have found is that NCP rarely take court action and in the last 6 months have taken a total of 4 cases to court so the odds are well in your favour.

 

I suspect the letter you have received from WH is stated as Letter OF Claim Rather than Letter BEFORE Claim. The difference may not seem much to you but it does matter. There are variants of those words but to fulfil the Pre Action Protocols, they should at the very least send you a letter before claim or letter before action.

 

I would continue to ignore unless actual court papers arrive.

You could complain to WH but that is up to you. You could also do more research about whether the site is covered by bylaws

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

TFL cannot use railway byelaws but they have their own and as far as I know dont have separate parking laws but rely on the Road Traffic Act, the same as any council would.

 

 

That would mean that NCP would still have nothing to do with any of tis so ya boo sucks to them, the horse they rode in on and the colonel who sent them.

 

Yes, the leter is a " we have no powers but hope that someone instructs us to do somehting but we know that is unlikley so we beg you to be scared and pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I have spent the best part of an hour trying to find out if this site is covered by any bylaws. Fail!

You could also do more research about whether the site is covered by bylaws

 

It is a TfL car park, so subject to byelaws (see post 11).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a TfL car park, so subject to byelaws (see post 11).

 

Oh I agree, it's just that I cannot find any proof of such. We have seen around airports that the bylaws in place are ignored by both the PPC and the airport and I am trying to see if TFL are doing the same thing.

Many car parks owned by these companies are abdicating responsibility ( I believe) to the PPCs and should be stopped

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

TFL cannot use railway byelaws but they have their own and as far as I know dont have separate parking laws but rely on the Road Traffic Axt, the same as any council would. .

 

TfL have their own railway byelaws, the parking byelaws are virtually the same as the Transport Act ones. (See post 11).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NCP windscreen PCN - Stanmore LU Car Park - not within lines - now various ZZPS-WRIGHT HASSALL Letters
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...