NCP ANPR PNC - Tacket Street, Ipswich

[JSTL94]

Hello all,

 

I have been directed your way from an advice thread on reddit.

 

I received a letter in the post from NCP the other day stating that I now owe them £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) for parking in their car park without paying.

 

However, the kicker is that I didn't actually park there.

I entered the car park to pick somebody up and left 15 minutes later.

 

I've logged in to check what pictures they actually have, all they have are pictures of my vehicle entering the car park and leaving 15 minutes later.

They don't have any evidence of me walking off into town for example (they wouldn't, because I remained in my car the entire time).

 

it seems to me that they can't claim that I parked there without paying if they have no proof of my car actually being parked.

 

I would like some help with appealing this and any suggestions would be appreciated

[renegadeimp]

Its not a fine. Its a speculative invoice.

 

Sit tight and the regulars will be around to ask you a few questions.

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Can you fill this in as much as possible.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

I assume this was a pay and display car park and the grace period is 10 minutes however, they would have a hard job convincing a court that you parked and didn't pay. If it was a free car park then they can go forth.

[sgtbush]

Whilst it Is a speculative invoice and the company wont follow the law and you will more than likely get off with it do not say " the kicker I I didn't park"

You did unless you kept your vehicle moving for the 15 mins you were actually in the car park.

[JSTL94]

Hi, thanks for your response! Please find completed details below:

 

1 Date of the infringement 15-10-2017

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 27-10-2017

 

3 Date received 01-11-2017

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] No

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Photographic evidence of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] Not yet

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

 

7 Who is the parking company? NCP

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Tacket Street, Ipswich

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - BPA

 

Hope I've done that all correctly!

[dx100uk]

thank you

can you post up the NTK to PDF please

read UPLOAD

[silverfox1961]

I have had a look on Google streetview and there were some images taken a year ago.

 

As well as insufficient lighting when parking at night, I could see no signs other than the one at the entrance from the road and one at the entrance to the car park. there is a yellow cabin at the end.

 

Is that how it is or have things been updated.

 

The only mention of pay and display is in a small font where you enter from the road and if you were to turn left into that street, you would miss that entirely. Even turning right you could see NCP but not the small font at the bottom of the sign.

I think you would need to go back and photograph the car park with any/all signs visible.

 

As it stands, NCP do not take court action often. (around 6 cases this year) and as the are members of the BPA you will get a (hopefully) fair hearing with POPLA as NCP, as well as all the others out there, never cave in at the beginning.

 

All you need from NCP is the POPLA code.

[JSTL94]

thank you

can you post up the NTK to PDF please

read UPLOAD

 

Happy to do so dx100uk but I only have pictures of this letter from my phone I'm afraid, the link in your message states it's (understandably) not preferred. I don't have access to a scanner at this present moment (I can use the one I have at work but I won't be able to get to that until Monday) - do you have any alternative solutions for me to upload the NTK? Thanks.

 

I have had a look on Google streetview and there were some images taken a year ago.

 

As well as insufficient lighting when parking at night, I could see no signs other than the one at the entrance from the road and one at the entrance to the car park. there is a yellow cabin at the end.

 

Is that how it is or have things been updated.

 

The only mention of pay and display is in a small font where you enter from the road and if you were to turn left into that street, you would miss that entirely. Even turning right you could see NCP but not the small font at the bottom of the sign.

I think you would need to go back and photograph the car park with any/all signs visible.

 

As it stands, NCP do not take court action often. (around 6 cases this year) and as the are members of the BPA you will get a (hopefully) fair hearing with POPLA as NCP, as well as all the others out there, never cave in at the beginning.

 

All you need from NCP is the POPLA code.

 

Without going back and looking myself silverfox1961 I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. If the images were taken a year ago then I doubt it would have been updated since, but I can go back and check in the morning to confirm. The letter states that I would need to appeal this decision to NCP first, before appealing to POPLA. I am guessing that once NCP have rejected my appeal they will give me the POPLA code or I can at least request this from them? What should I mention in my appeal? Thanks.

[silverfox1961]

Yes, go back and take some pictures. Make sure you include the lack of lighting and signs.

 

Yes you need to appeal to NCP first and when they reject your argument (and they will) they must give you a POPLA code.

 

I was also thinking that as this was an ANPR ticket, they may have been timed out but the dates (in my opinion) may be fine. You should have received the notice by the 30th but as the date on the letter is 27th , it could take an extra couple of days to get to you however, have a look at the envelope and see if it is stamped and the date it was done.

[dx100uk]

read the link in UPLOAD JSTL

theres program there list officelens

[ericsbrother]

the date you received the letter is too late to create keeper liability as long as it was sent second class mail. It will have been deemed delivered a day earlier if first class unless you can show the postmark on the envelope was after the 28th

[JSTL94]

Hello again, apologies for the delay in responding! I have attached the NTK as requested. I also took pictures which I'm not sure if you want me to attach them also?

09112017, 1238 Office Lens.pdf

09112017, 1238 Office Lens 1.pdf

[ericsbrother]

convert to pdf so we see the whole thing. What about the envelope?

[JSTL94]

convert to pdf so we see the whole thing. What about the envelope?

 

Apologies - I uploaded both pages in pdf format, at least I thought I did.

 

There should be 2 attachments,

first being the front page and second being back.

 

If you can't see that let me know and I will try a different method.

 

Unfortunately my mother threw the envelope away,

I was away from home and expecting an important letter

so asked her if I had any post,

 

she responded that I had just 1 letter and I asked her to open it for me and send me a picture of it.

This wasn't the letter I was expecting.

I asked her the other day if she still had the envelope and she said she threw it away.

[ericsbrother]

I meant the pictures of the signage you mentioned.

 

as for the envelope then this makes it difficult to deny service of the NTK in time as it is deemed delivered by first class post within2 days of its issue.

 

Many parking companies put a false date on the NTK and then claim it was sent within the statutory time when that is untrue.

 

Sometimes they are undone because they apply to the DVLA for keeper details at the wrong time

[JSTL94]

Attached are the pictures I took.

 

1556 picture is taken from how I entered the car park.

 

1553 is what you see once you've turned in to enter the car park. Just beyond the sign on the right hand side there is a light, but it does not appear to be facing the sign next to the entrance.

 

1547 is taken from the perspective of driving into the entrance.

 

1546 is a closeup of the sign.

 

1642 is an image of smaller signs with a view of the entrance/exit. There are a few of these dotted around, I'd say a collective of around 5-6 points across the whole car park.

 

I'd be grateful if you could advise me on what grounds I can appeal this?

10112017, 1553 Office Lens.pdf

10112017, 1547 Office Lens 1.pdf

10112017, 1546 Office Lens.pdf

10112017, 1642 Office Lens.pdf

10112017, 1556 Office Lens.pdf

[ericsbrother]

now the sign refers to other signs so we need to see them.

 

They are supposedly scattered about the place but are also going to be attached to the ticket machine

so it is important we see decent pictures of this.

 

The big sign is NOT the contract, it is an invitation to treat so the other signs are the ones likely to create the contract if you did indeed enetr into one

[JSTL94]

Yes I see what you mean, the picture with the littler signs has the terms and conditions but it is not very clear. I will go back and take a new one tomorrow and count how many of them there are, in case that information is useful. Is there anything else you think might be useful to gather while I’m there?

[JSTL94]

I have attached the terms and conditions.

Sorry that it isn't fully clear.

 

The writing was so small that if I had taken the picture from any further away you wouldn't have been able to see it and if I'd gotten any closer I wouldn't have been able to fit it all in one picture.

 

When I returned to the car park,

I re-looked at the smaller signs which I thought were the T&C's,

they weren't, they were just smaller versions of the sign in the front of the car park.

 

There is only one sign that lays out the terms and conditions.

The other 17+ signs all state "the terms and conditions, which can be found in and around this car park".

 

What I found most interesting, however, is that there is a car wash in this car park.

The only way to access this car wash is to enter the car park.

 

As the parking company has not provided evidence of my vehicle being stationary within a marked bay and given the amount of time I was there could I argue that I entered the car park, reviewed the parking costs/terms and conditions, enquired about the car wash and then left?

16112017, 1916 Office Lens.pdf

[silverfox1961]

I just thought I would mention that as far as I am aware, NCP have taken just 7 cases to court this year so the chances of getting that far are slim. This is based on over 64,000 tickets issued.

[ericsbrother]

the sign with the contract is interesting.

 

Point 5.2 says they will recover their costs so that will be about a fiver not £60.

 

All in all the signage is contradictory, confusing and inadequate to offer a clear contract to park.

 

Plenty of other examples where claims have been chucked out with better signage than this.

[JSTL94]

I have appealed the parking charge with NCP - I have not included my mobile number or my email address, so they have no choice but to write to me in person as before. As alluded by other members in this thread, I expect that they will reject this appeal, so any advice on what to include (including any critiques in my current appeal) would be very much appreciated.

 

The following is what I included in my appeal:

 

I am appealing this parking charge notice on several grounds.

 

You have not provided sufficient evidence of my vehicle being parked. Your photographic evidence provided by your ANPR Camera only shows my vehicle entering the car park and then leaving 15 minutes later, it does not show my vehicle stationary in a marked bay. It is imperative to clearly evidence the contravention occurred rather than the speculative evidence you have provided.

 

In your Notice to Keeper you have stated that in accordance to the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 - you have requested information from the DVLA and are pursuing the registered keeper for the charge. However, you have not stated in either the terms and conditions or the Notice to Keeper the legislation which allows you to pursue the Registered Keeper without proving who was driving the vehicle, which you have not done.

 

I have visited your car park and reviewed the amount of time it would take to find a parking space on a typically busy day and then review the terms and conditions in full - this took just under 10 minutes while on foot. This means that it would typically take longer to physically park the vehicle, walk to the ONLY sign in the car park that displays the terms and conditions and then make the informed decision as to whether or not they wish to enter into such a contract and then return to the vehicle either to leave or display a ticket. As evidenced by the timescales provided in your images, the terms had been reviewed and the driver made an informed decision not to enter into a contract and then left the car park.

 

While this is mostly speculative, it could also be argued that the driver entered the car park to enquire about a car wash which can only be accessed by entering the car park and again deciding not to go ahead with entering into the contract and therefore not being liable for the charge. Nowhere in your terms and conditions do you state that there is a grace period, yet all the signs around the car park refers the drivers to the terms and conditions which is only located in one place in the whole car park.

 

Overall, I do not believe that I am liable for this parking charge and request that you respectfully cancel the charge and update your records accordingly.

[dx100uk]

kregrs

your posts and responses have been moved to your existing thread

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?481154-Parking-Eye-charge-question

[ericsbrother]

trhey will not allow your appeal and pOPLA will say that the signs were clear and ignore the law, that s not in their remit. Do not expect to resolve this matter any time soon.

[JSTL94]

What happens if POPLA don’t uphold my appeal?

 

Surely that makes me liable for the full cost does it not?