Norwich Traffic Control/BW windscreen PCN Claimform - 1 minute stay - Connaught Hall Attleborough dr surgery

[F1MOS]

Hello,

I would be grateful for some support on a PCN issued by Norwich Traffic Control on 2017. The car park is also for a DR's surgery that I was attending.

 

I parked my car in a car park that was being enforced by NTC on 12/05/17

The entrance for the car park is only wide enough for one car so if you are maneuvering to allow another car to pass, you are not able to read the signs as you enter the car park.

Upon parking my car, I went over to the pay and display machine to see if there was anything reading the Dr's surgery, there wasnt, just the usual generic sign.

I then went into the Dr's surgery to ask them about the pay and display. They informed me that there were allocated parking spaces and the sign detailing this was only at the entrance for the car park. They also said that I wasnt the only person not to see the signs.

 

I went back out side to move my car however I was met by a NTC Warden who had already issued a parking ticket. I had been away from the car for 1 minute.

I explained to the NTC warden and the fact they must have seen me go into the Dr's.... I was informed that it wasnt her problem.

 

Later that day I emailed NTC and explained the situation, they informed me that ticket was still valid.

 

I appealed via the IAS and highlighted that i believed NTC had not complied with the Code of Practice for the IPC as follows;

IPC Code of Practice

Part B,

Clause 2 – Signage

Clause 13 – Professionalism

Clause 14 – Predatory Tactics

Clause 15 – Grace Periods

 

BPA Code of Practice

Clause 9 – Professionalism

Clause 12 – Requesting registered keeper details

Clause 13 – Grace Period

 

The IAS dismissed the apoeal by stating the following;

"Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

 

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed."

 

I have today received a County Court Claim from NTC's solicitors claiming £246.06 for the parking ticket.

 

I still believe that NTX did not comply with the Code of Practice for all of the reasons detailed above however I would be grateful for anyone's assistance with this.

 

NTC are notorious for things like this and there are numerous complaints about their methods of operation.

Photos.pdf

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465231-Received-a-Court-Claim-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***Updated-Aug-2016***

[F1MOS]

Name of Claimant - Norwich Traffic Control Limited

 

Claimants Solicitors - BW Legal, Enterprise House, Leeds

 

Date of Issue - 07/01/19

 

Reason of Claim -

 

1.The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a PCN issued on 12/05/17 at 1115 at Connaught Hall Attleborough. The PCN Relates to Mercedes under registration XXXXX.

 

2.The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the PCN but the defendant failed to do so.

 

3.Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstsanding liability.

 

4.The Claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 12/05/17 to 04/01/19 being an amount of £12.06.

 

5.The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions.

 

 

total amount £247.06

 

Please let me know if you require anything else.

 

Many thanks,

Edited January 13, 2019 by dx100uk
merge

[renegadeimp]

so theyre double dipping. 100 for the charge, then a random 60 for no reason. then the solicitors fee, then court charges then interest.

[dx100uk]

thread tidied......and retitled

 

,...……..

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

 

get below CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31-14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim)(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

[F1MOS]

Thank you.

 

I will confirm when its all done.

[silverfox1961]

No wonder they have an attendant on site as one minute isn't even enough time to go and purchase a ticket. They could then give tickets to everyone if they chose

 

As it is in the hands of the courts now it is pointless contacting the doctors surgery or Connaught Hall. You must defend all and start gathering your defence paperwork and stick rigidly to all court indtructions. Any queries, just ask.

 

Check to see if either the hall, the docs or NTC hhave planning permission for the signs too. Lots of these companies don't bother with legalities but it bites them if they haven't permission and then try to sue.

[silverfox1961]

Well, after a comprehensive search of Station Road, Attleborough in the district of Breckland going back to 2014, I found 19 entries for planning permission and none of them was for Connaught Hall, Station Road Doctors nor NTC.

 

Just thought you ought to know.

[ericsbrother]

sorry, but the reason you are in this mire is because you appealed and then didnt wet yourself when they rejected that appeal.

 

In this instance the BPA is your friend.

As the main ATA they have a code of practice that gives a minimum of a 10 minute grace period to allow you to fins a space, read the conditions on the signage and to get change to pay the meter if applicable. The court will use that Code of Practice as its benchmark so the IPC will have to show that theirs is better then that and why it is different.

 

In practical terms if you had got out of the car to read the sign and decide that you didnt want to be bound by its terms and left within a minute then how can they say you have agreed to them?

 

you can still use this argument despite saying you were in the doctors.

you could have simply been asking at reception "do those stupid conditons apply to patients" and having been told yes you decided "stuff that I'm off".

 

The attendant want privvy to your conversation and in any case should have engaged with you on this asd they are supposed to mitigate their actions ( read up on that but for example tell you that you will get a ticket unless you move or pay and display rather than just slapping a ticket on your car)

 

As long as you get the acknowledgement of service done in time you will have lots of time to read up on what will happen from now on.

 

I have read the small print on their sign and they refer to the £100 as a parking charge in the same manner as the money you chuck in the meter so do they mean you have 28 days to feed the meter?

The tiny print on a sign facing the wrong way wont impress a court.

 

Also confusing is the sign sayng the car park is for users of the Connaught Hall only when the doctors surgery has its own spaces.

That is confusing to say the least so it cant be a contract offered by the yellow backward facing sign as the forward facing large sign has a plan of the different parking areas.

 

What you can do is ask the hall management what the terms of their contract with NTC are.

they arent obliged to tell you but as the council has had this raised as an issue previously I note that the liason committee who brought in the parking bandits arent the landowners so question whether they have the authority to enter into such contracts.

 

Get in touch with councillor S Taylor to see what was decided when this was raised just over a year ago

Edited January 14, 2019 by dx100uk
space/spell

[F1MOS]

thank you very much.

[silverfox1961]

EB,

 

NTC are not members of the BPA. They are with the IPC so we all know how any appeal will go for them.

 

It appears from the IAS rejection is that NTC are the arbiters of any appeal, not the IAS?? Go figure!

 

The IAS could have told NTC that there was no liability but of course they won't as they have to play nice with the people that pay their wages.

 

By the way, on the doctors surgery website, they rent some spaces from Connaught Hall and advise that if spaces are full, to display a ticket.

 

Personally, I think the attendant saw you go into the surgery, not expecting you to come out so quickly and got caught issuing a ticket. I wonder if NTC attendants get a bonus for tickets issued?

[F1MOS]

I informed NTC that they had not complied with the BPA Code of Practice and got told...

"We are not required to adhere to the BPA code of practise and any points raised thereafter are not relevant to this parking charge.

 

We are satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly and following your conduct at the time the charge was issued we are not prepared to look at the appeal again. This is notwithstanding the fact you have not provided any new information on which an appeal should be based."

 

With regards to the NTC Warden, NTC said "The operative is not required to discuss the matter with you and always carries photo ID as required by the Code of practise."

 

 

I asked NTC for a copy of their contract between the landowners and themselves but they failed to provide this.

 

However, NTC are members of IPC and must comply wit their Code of Practice which clearly states that predatory tactics must not be used in enforcing parking (Clause 14), Grace periods must be applied (clause 15).

Could this be used as defence?

[ericsbrother]

I know, that is why I said that the IPC CoP has to be shown to be better than the BPA one or it isnt worth a light.

You can dive through a red light under cetain circumstances and do many things the highway code cover as long as you can justify your actions. i really dont think NTC can justify their actions and the IAs have come up ith an absolutely asenine decision but that is normal fro them, ignoring the law nd just stating the operator has told thm they are correct so their decision stands. That is why the rubbish parking co's join the IPC in the first place, they know where they are welcome as long as they pay their (lesser) fees

[silverfox1961]

We are not required to adhere to the BPA code of practise and any points raised thereafter are not relevant to this parking charge

 

Not surprised they said that as they are members of the IPC but they do have to adhere to the IPC code of practice but as you are now aware, the CoP is there but it is equally ignored. The IPC are just paying lip service to the code. They are vultures by any other name.

[ericsbrother]

OP, also ask at the dr's surgery if their CCTV goes back that far. If it does request a copy so you can prove your timings

[F1MOS]

I have photos with the time stamp confirming the times and my emails to NTC confirming this at the time.

[ericsbrother]

still go for the cctv as it creates a groundswell of opinion against the parking co.

NTC do not have planning consent for signage and the trustees of the hall dont have pp for the meters either so both criminal offences and that means no contract.

i have asked breckland council for copies of planning application for doctors so hopefully we will find more problems for them.

i cant find a list of the hall trustees but peter thatcher is supposedly a point of contact

[F1MOS]

ericsbrother thank you. I will ask the Doctors as suggested.

 

Thank you so much, much appreciated.

[ericsbrother]

now I have done a bit of digging into the company and the site.

 

The trustees of Attleborough hall ordered one of the then directors to cease his activites because he was issuing tickets for being there 1 minute and also ordered the removal of the ANPR cameras. The date of this I'm not certain but it was in 2017.

 

The Hall trustees offered a new contract to NTC late 2018 so there is a distinct chance that no contract with the landlord existed when you parked there.

 

Also have a look at the companies house listing for NTC LIMITED.

 

They formed in 2010 and

were dissolved in 2013 and

reappeared as another company called NTC LIMITED on 22nd may that year

 

but 2 other companies also appeared after the 1st dissolved,

NTC LTD and Proprty maintenance and management (norfolk) ltd who were previously NTC (SERVICES).

The property co is the sole director of NTC LIMITED.

 

QWhat does this all mean?

Well, who was the Hall contract with and who is claiming they have a contract with you as thre are 2 different companies with the same name.

 

As an aside, one of the directors who lived in attleborough used to deliberately ticket cars after 1 minute and money disappeared so that was why they wwere told to change their ways.

 

I woudl argue that the company that is suing you isnt the same NTC that had the contract with the Hall and that the current mob only had permission to be there since last year and so have no locus in this matter as you received no notice of assignmant of the alleged debt between the companies with similar names.

 

The Hall manager has a copy of the contract between the hall and the parking co so try asking him nicely for a photocopy.

 

He read it out to me and there was no date on it so that itself damages their claim as they cnat prove they had an agreement in place at the time.

 

They council have invited me to make a complaint regarding the planning issue to their enforcement team which I wil gladly do.

 

I want to speak to the chair of the trustees first as they are probably breaching their charitable status by running a commercial enterprise separately to the Hall and not declaring the income and thus avoidfing Corporation Tax, VAT etc.

 

The valuations Agency may have something to say about that but lets go after the parking co first. all of the other info you can use locally to put pressure on the Hall Trustees to think about how they manage their facilities

 

because they may end up having to compensate every person who has ever paid up the £100 personally.

 

The Hall is also considering putting paint down to indicate spaces for dropping off/pcking up.

Edited January 14, 2019 by dx100uk
Spacing

[ericsbrother]

forgot to add, the property co is in trouble for not filing with Companies House so soon the parking co may not have any directors and that means they cant continue to pursue you as they wont be a legal entity. companieshouse are slow to act on this though

They are also heavily in debt compared to their income and assets

[F1MOS]

Wow......how on earth have you managed to get all of this!?!

 

When I parked there there was no camera but I have no idea when there was one there previously.

[ericsbrother]

how, by being persistent. the council didnt want to look into the planning issue until i made it clear what law they were missing out on and they went away and looked for themselves. You generally speak to an admin person whej you contact them and they wont know the detail so you need to get someone else involved.

 

Companies House lists all of the activity of limited cos and although you dotn get to see the full accouts of the companies you get a taste by looking at what they do file and how often they get a red flag for being naughty. Follow the listed directors around and you will often see tie ups with other failed companies or other people as directors of apparently unconnected co's. Look at addresses, you dont really get 32 people living in one house so that points to accommodation addresses being used to avoid the bailiffs or angry customers. Often it is some elderly parent of a dodgy director who has been cuckolded.(electoral roll).

 

Now you have a couple fo good defence points and some interesting stuff to ask themif they do pitch up at court. just getting to the botton of the comapanmy anme and CH registered number will give them a headache and the judge will most likely think they are not a reliable witness and thus ignore anything else they say.

 

Have a word with Councillor S Taylor on the town council as well, she was dealing with other cases and may have info regarding how they ended that is relevant. They date from aug 2017 so pertinent to your matter

Edited January 15, 2019 by honeybee13
Paras

[ericsbrother]

once you have acknowledged the claim ( have you done that yet- if not get on with it NOW) you have another 12 days to submit an outline of your defence.

In your case I would go with.

1) the claimant had no authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public nor to make civil claims in their own name at the time of the supposed event. The contract between the landowner and a company called Norwich Traffic control Limited was only agreed in late 2018. Therefore there is no cause for action against the defendant.

2) there is no planning permission for any sigange or cameras or parking meter at that place. As the claim is for a breach of the parking conditions offered bsaid ILLEGAL signs then it is impossible to form a contract as that would be a criminal compact.

3) the plaintiff has failed to follow the terms of its membership of its ATA and failed to allow the prescribed 10 minutes grace period.

4) in any case the signage is inadequate to form a contract.

 

 

now if they decide to continue with this folly you can go into the detail about their phoenixed company and the previous booting out for breaking the 10 minute rule and the detail of the signage etc. at the appropriate time. The above is more that you really need to put but I suggest that by showing a little of what you know you are more likely to get them to drop the claim rather than spending more money knowing they are going to lose. In the meanwhile I have a form to fill in regarding the breach of planning that the council want me to return to them. thsi will focus the mionds of the trustees as well as they may ahve to remove their parking meter as that lacks PP as well. once they lose money by the handful they wont be happy with NTC behaviour and likely give tem the boot for the second time

[F1MOS]

Good day Everyone,
I now have a date for this case in Norwich country court.
The Claimant (NTC) have not replied to my letter detailed in comment #5 which requests information from the Claimant.

They have sent a letter reiterating that I was in violation of their terms and conditions.

My question is....what is the legislation that requires planing permission for the signs and machines to be installed?

I will try and get information from the Hall regarding previous violations of the Claimant in the car park.

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

thanks for keeping us updated...……………...

so when have they got pay the fee by

and went have you gotta file your ws??