other NCP/BW ANPR PCN Letter of Claim - Spires Barnet

[Caro63]

Advice please - I parked in NCP Barnet on 27.12.18. No barriers and am not local, but local friend I was meeting assured me it was pay to park...….thought I'd take a photo of the location number, finally found a machine - weren't any notices, and then tried to pay at the machine. Was as number plate one and despite several attempts could only pay £1.50 ……..then received PCN to keeper last week.

 

Anything I can do - I think I prob underpaid by £1, and I know its my fault, but £60 seems a bit steep!

 

Any help gratefully received,

 

Many thanks

 

Date of the infringement

27/12/2018

 

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

 

Date of sending is 18/01/19

 

3 Date received

 

21/01/19

 

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?

 

Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal]

 

No

 

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

 

7 Who is the parking company?

 

NCP

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

 

Spires Barnet

 

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

 

It says complain to NCP

 

There are two official bodies, the

BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE- BPA

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 

I have not received any other information but the letter does say that if payment is recieved within 14 days then I could pay £60 instead of th £100 they intend to charge. The letter also says that if I want to appeal I must do so within 14 days.

 

[honeybee13]

Thank you to lookinforinfo for the heads up.

 

Caro, you've left personal details in your attachments which we don't recommend. I've removed them, maybe you'd like to post up anonymised documents.

 

HB

[Caro63]

Thanks - thought I’d removed my address. Without being stupid what do I have to delete?

Edited January 30, 2019 by dx100uk
quote

[dx100uk]

read upload

anything the can id YOU or the car or ref no's

 

leave dates/times etc

[Caro63]

Edited files uploaded

NCP Form front.pdf

NCP Form back.docx.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Caro

NCP have taken a long time to write to you-is your car on lease ?

 

I note that they are not using POFA so that means that they can only pursue the driver not the keeper.

I see that they asked for your details from DVLA using the Road Vehicles [Registration and Licensing] Regulations 2002 rather than POFA.

I don't know what difference it makes getting your data that way maybe they can get away with using PO Box number that way on your NTK.

 

Whatever you do, do not divulge who the driver was as they cannot sue the keeper.

You are best then not to appeal as if you were the driver you might reveal that you were by what you say.

 

I wonder what the others might say if you were to write saying that you are not prepared to provide them with the name of the driver and as they are not using POFA it would be a breach of POFA to continue writing to you as the keeper.

 

Remind them that breaches of GDPR can run up to at least £750 which you will not hesitate to claim should you hear from them again.

That would only work if your car was not leased.

Edited January 30, 2019 by dx100uk
spacing

[Caro63]

Thank you. No the cars never been leased it’s all mine! I’ll put together a letter making the points you have suggested, great advice

[ericsbrother]

I wouldnt bother writing them them at this stage as they havent created a keeper liability and trying to reason with them will only make them think you will pay up if they tell you a big enough lie.Let them waste their time and money chasing you and in the meanwhile get your friend to take some pictures of the site.

 

Also they havent included photographic evidence of your vehicle so that means they have failed to create ANY liability (unless you have edited them out) as you say there is photographic evidence.

 

This amkes a difference to the meaning of what they have sent so be careful how you present stuff.

Edited January 31, 2019 by honeybee13
Paras, typos

[Caro63]

As advised on here I have ignored all the letters and now have a 'Final demand' from a company called Trace Debt Recovery for £160 - not v nice - do I continue to ignore or offer to pay? I don't want court fees or a CCJ at the worst! Thank you

[ericsbrother]

ask yourself why you owe trace £160?

did you sign a credit agreement with them when you chose to ignore their paymaster? NO,

 

they are hoping that you confuse a useless taradiddle with a high court writ and pay up when you have no reason to do so.

 

you need to read more about the subject, it is covered in nearly every private parking thread so arm yourself with knowledge and you will then realise that 95% of the time the parking co has no valid claim and yours is one of those cases.

 

Expect another letter from the rentathreat and then you may get a letter from a firm of solicitors that gives the residents of Parkhurst a good name.

 

That is the time to respond as the response will show that you are not ignoring them altogether, just hold them in contempt

[Caro63]

Hi,

 

Me again...have sat tight and ignored letters from Trace.

 

Now have received attached from BW Legal threatening me with court action if I don't reply and pay them by June 19th.

 

I'm not sure what to do

- I don't want to go to court,

and tbh no idea what I did/didn't pay it was so long ago....and no proof anyway.

Such a ridiculous amount over a £1.50 parking ticket.

 

Please can you suggest my next move, would be grateful for help!

(and what to write - to confuse things I'm not living at the address where my car is registered, but not insured there - its my house, I pay for it but live elsewhere - if I write to them I assume I use that address?)

 

many thanks.

 

 

BW3.docx.pdf

[dx100uk]

its a leter of claim

you now must respond within 30 days with one of the many snotty/insulting letters by EB here to BWL.

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

topic tidied....  so as above

[ericsbrother]

So,

Dear BWL, 

being brighter than Will and John at Gladstones/IPC you will of course know that no keeper liability (in fact no liability at all) has been created by your client's taradiddles so unless they come up with STRICT PROOF as to who was driving and then go and bother them I suggest that you tell you client to stop wasting my time and their money an a claim they will lose.

[Caro63]

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer, I'll send off the reply and hope for the best!

[Caro63]

HI,

 

I've received a reply to my letter, which was worded as suggested above. How do I proceed as they say they still hold me liable for £160? Thanks very much. Have attached their letter.

scan0064.pdf

[honeybee13]

Sit on your hands until people like EB can get here please, but I'm not sure you need to reply. It's a shame the naf off letter didn't work, but I don't think it's a problem.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

go on then..issue your claim..we'll see..

 

[brassnecked]

Of course  there is NO compulsion on you to name a driver at all, it's a parking cowboy, not a Police ticket

[lookinforinfo]

Interesting that they are not using POFA and yet they intend to hold you liable as the keeper which can only be done if they rely on POFA! 

 

They must stop getting the tea boy to write these letters.

If it were me that had received that letter I would have sent a letter of complaint to the SRA since they are threatening something they cannot do and demanding the driver's details which you are not obliged to do.

 

Plus they appear to be demanding 160 pounds from you knowing that you are not the driver therefore not liable for any payment at all.

[brassnecked]

They are not going to rely on POFA, they will trot out the old discredited in Private Parking cases Elliott v Loake  which was a Criminal case Keeper must disclose driver details to police, but same doesn't apply to a PPC, they did bandy about te idea of getting a Norwich Pharmacal Order to force keeper to disclose, but those are too expensive and unlikely to be granted in a Parking case.  CPS v AJH Films is another chestntut oft quoted in a PPC WS, but again not applicable as is about employer/employee liability.  .Those cases are put in to bolster the already flimsy reasons for their claim.

[ericsbrother]

so they have sent you a letter saying that they cant hold you liable under law but intend to use some unspecified superpowers to hold you liable.

In the meanwhile they are going to do nothing........

as brassnecked says, they trot out 2 much discredited bits of case law that dont apply. If they went back far enough in history they would recycle the one from before the time motor insurance was a necessity and when people used chauffeurs so the owner was liable.

They sometimes threaten to get a Norwich Pharmacal order but would fail on the honesty test for that.

 

It is important to note what they arent going to do, the rest of their scribble is just more of the same  old same old.

[Caro63]

Thanks for all the comments above....slightly unsure what I should actually do - Do I write back/ignore/quote case law? Just checking.

[ericsbrother]

you do nothing, they havent actually done anything other than kill a tree

[Caro63]

Ok I'll save another forest and keep quiet until I hear anything - thank you!