Jump to content



NPM PCN claimform - overstay Un-adopted Rd entrance to old St Edmunds Hosp Northampton - *** Claim Struck Out+Costs***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 359 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

Reading that article, it states that part of the road is adopted and it is requiring, unless agreed otherwise, that a Traffic Regulation Order be obtained for double yellow lines etc. It may also explain the boundary marking of the road in your earlier plans, from the main road just up to the island and the two short 'spurs' - it certainly looks adopted in your earlier pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

pop up on the MCOL website mentioned on the claimfor,   register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start A

back to the content of their Particulars of Claim.   they say the claim is for unauthorised parking - now this cant be, it has to be for monies due under a contract for parking or

The BPA and IPC are NOT regulators. They are clubs to which Private Parking Companies belong and pay for the running. They don't have bars to serve drinks, but by pulling the wool over the eyes o

We may have had some temporary success.

 

The NPM Cowboys, their floodlighting and flash cameras were not present last night when it was dark

they maybe lying low at the moment unless they were all at a staff Bonfire Party that Mt Gearly was holding!

I know who I would have liked to have seen as the guy on top of the bonfire :)

Sorry if that last sentence is breaking group rules.

 

i have continued to push Tesco's into taking action.

They have tried to fob me off and pull the wool over my eyes, but they apologised in the end for doing so and have stated this will be passed onto the area manager.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so a question about which part will be the adoptable hightway when completed.

The layout suggests all of the access road that is currently the part that is causing the problem.

 

Now the next para that you can hardly see in your post makes it clear as to where this does end and to my mind the actual tarmac already there is covered by this so probably adopted by the default position of planning being granted.

 

appears as though 2 departments at NDC arent singing from the same hymnsheet as they say in managementspeak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt think it was a done deal that the road will be adopted at all.

I would think like you that all of the part causing issues will be adopted.

 

Yes the tarmac and normal line marking are part of the problem.

It looks like a finished adopted road and as there are no signs stating otherwise obviously shopper are none the wiser until that PCN drops through the letter box!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wont be adopted until the store opens for business but you can stuill rely on Dawood v Camden and the overriding fact that there is no contract to breach. Do not forget this last point as it is the only sure fire winner, the rest rely onpeople being convinced that a contract is void because... rather than no contract to start with

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there has been a Stopping order by the council, Market Street is an adopted road already, it was a through road from Wellingborough Rd to Kettering Rd. The construction site access road is a seperate spur and will likely belong to the developer.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry, I thought this was a construction site.

Anyways, who is the landowner as it isnt Tesco Knowing this may be helpful re contracts and planning for signs

 

The document is a pdf from the Council website. The quality is poor. As they say you cannot polish the s word. Tesco property manager phoned me this afternoon. I am sending him all the complaint details and he is going to speak to the Landlord. If he gets a response it will be that the Parking Management Company is a member of the IPC and signs at the site approved by the IPC and Trading Standards. I have told him why to dismiss these statements.

 

He confirmed who I know to be the Landlord and owner of the land.

Edited by dx100uk
quote/merge
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Just a quick note that I'm also being hassled by these people for payment of a parking charge.... just ignoring everything so far. But I did check their assertion that the signage at this location had been 'approved by Trading Standards'. I checked with Northampton County Council Trading Standards, since this seemed a bold claim. I received an email reply saying that this was not the case.

PJM

Link to post
Share on other sites

signs or their approval are nothing to do with TS, they are not ADVERTS

might be best to start a new thread

you don't ignore EVERYTHING

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

I'm not sure what your point is?

The parking company in question have asserted that trading standards had 'approved' of the signage at this location.

I am simply pointing out that this is not the case.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they are talking twaddle I was agreeing...:lol:

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
  • 2 weeks later...

If it helps anybody, I recently found out from the Tesco employees that NPM lost the contract from the landowner for this un-adopted road around a month ago due to numerous amounts of complaints

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Thanks for the info...

Hi everyone.

 

I have not been on here for sometime as I was waiting for the LBC, which has finally arrived. I will upload it later with personal details covered.

 

Whilst waiting for the LBC my Father contacted Tesco Head Office about the issue of shoppers receiving PCN's in this road because the signage is poor (e.g. none at the entrance of the road, these refer to Land/Site, not Road & most do not face the driver) and consequently they park unaware that the road is Private/Un-adopted with no parking allowed.

 

Also NPM have been breaking IPC Codes of Conduct, like alluring drivers to park where it is forbidden by parking their own vehicles there & using portable floodlights and flash to take PCN photos at night because their signs or not illuminated.

 

As a result of this Tesco complained to their Landlord, who is the Landowner of the road and hence the NPM contract was suspended whilst investigations took place.

 

Management and staff at the store have assumed that the NPM contract has been cancelled because no one has been seen there for a few months now and one member of the NPM staff, who previously worked here, told staff that the company no longer manage the parking in this road anymore.

 

The NPM signs are still there except the one nearest the front of the store, which someone has removed.

 

However the Manager who was my Fathers contact at Tesco told us that the Landlord have completed their investigations and that the NPM contract is going to be reinstated after road repairs have been completed.

 

We cannot see that any repairs are required, & have not seen a copy of the investigation report.

 

The last 3 emails to this Tesco Manager have not received a reply, so he contacted Head Office, who have also been unable to contact this Manager.

 

instead they contacted the store and who confirmed their belief that the NPM contract has been cancelled & consequently they have made the following statement to my Father "I hope we have reassured you that this type of charge will not be incurred on our Customers any more and you can freely parkin the road when using this facility".

 

If this is definitely true we don't know why the other Tesco Manager misinformed us and then went silent on us. Something is not right, but my Father will get to the bottom of this.

 

My Father wrote a complaint letter about NPM to our MP, but she messed up and forgot to include enclosures with her first letter.

 

A second letter had to be sent which included these and a detailed reply was received, which sounded very good and believable, but a lot was untrue and are an attempt to wriggle out of the points of our complaint, so a third letter was required. This has not been responded to, other than receiving the LBC.

 

A complaint to the IPC about NPM breaking their code of conduct was hard work getting a response and turned out to be a waste of time as they just made up excuses for their member for each code that they had broken!

 

Parking Signs being approved by Trading Standards may be nothing to do with them.

However, over 4.5 years ago Gary Gearey, the MD of NPM was quote in the Northampton Chronicle & Echo newspaper that Trading Standards had approved the signs at this site, so if this was untrue I would love to have a copy of the email that supports this.

 

As promised here is the Letter Before Claim from NPM.

 

Does it legally comply?

It is interesting to see they have issued this themselves and not used a Solicitor.

I did have two QDR Solicitor letters before this and I saw that Gladstones messed up on one of their LBC's that caused issues with the court proceedings.

 

Any advice please on how to respond would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your continued support.

 

I have read Daewood V Camden (newspaper report). Camden Council won the case against the Dr Daewood parking on his own land so how does that support my case?

NPM LBC.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

it shows that the council has rights over the land and that in return menas the parking co's authority is trumped as you would naturally consider that the road surface is council property or at least maintained by them so signage doesnt apply.

As for responding to the lba I would do so but keep it short.

 

Dear sirs,

 

I deny that any monies are owed as no contrcat was created so there can be nothing owed for a breach of somehting that doesnt exist. If yu do take the matter to court I shall be seeking a full costs recovery orer under CPR 27.14.2(g) for your unreasonable conduct as you know there is no cause for action and you have no authority to make such a claim.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras, typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response.

Was worried that there were no views yesterday.

Obviously everyone was busy!!

 

I have read that whilst the road is unadopted and is private it is the Landowners responsibility to maintain it.

 

NPM have also stated in their response to my MP's complaint letter:

 

"St Edmunds is an un-adopted road.

An un-adopted road is a private road.

It is a road that is privately owned property and is limited to the use of the owners who share the use and maintain the road without help from a government agency.

 

Even though the road is un-adopted most regulations will still apply.

As this road is private the landowner does not wish to mark the road with any type of linage, which they are well within their rights to do so".

 

With regards to there not being a contract they wrote:

 

"Drivers are allowed and given time to read NPM signage to determine if they wish to park on Private land or not.

If a driver chooses to park on the private land, then they agree to abide by the terms and conditions of parking.

If drivers park and leave their vehicle a PCN will then be issued".

 

In another part of the letter they wrote

"The NPM contract is entered once the vehicle is stationary, unattended or stopped"

 

I cannot see how you can read the signage without parking and leaving your vehicle!!!!

 

Should I respond to the LBC with just a letter or also complete the relevant sections of the Annex 1.

(i.e. My details at the top of page 10, Tick Box D I dispute the debt (using reasons you have given?),

Tick Box I and ask for more information like the Landowner Authority,

and sign and date Page 12 below Box I)?

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

no!!

 

you do as advised ONLY

 

PRINT your name. do not sign it.

 

don't forget to use their PCN No. as a header.

 

that is all you need to do.

 

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

Yes ignore their tick box malarkey, and send them the response in ericsbrother's post#126 exactly as is, that shows them you know that they know there is no debt but they would like to bamboozle you into paying.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

in short they have told lies to your MP because they know that it wont be looked into again by them.

 

the other thing you need to do is change your mindset from being defensive and seeing their point of view to looking agressively for why they are wrong.

 

You have been given loads of examples and reasons yet want to look for reasons to fail.

Believing you are right and it becomes easier to fight the chisellers becuase your worries disappear

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with as to why they told lies to my MP,

but she did not accept the these and has written to the MD again to challenge them.

 

It is unlikely they will respond.

I am not looking for reasons to fail and do not intend to do so.

 

I most definitely believe that I am right, otherwise like many I would have already thrown in the towel.

As Margaret Thatcher once said "The lady's not for turning"

 

I worked out a few typos in your message but one I was unable to do so which is the word "orer" in the the sentence

"I will be seeking full costs recovery orer under.........."

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andyorch changed the title to NPM PCN claimform - overstay Un-adopted Rd entrance to old St Edmunds Hosp Northampton - *** Claim Struck Out+Costs***
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...