Nps letter of claim confusion

[BudgieH]

Firstly, I apologise because I realise there are other threads relating to this subject, but I am struggling to apply to my own situation. 

 

Letter of claim received from NPS from a Parking Charge in 2016.

 

I appealed at the time through IAS on inadequate signage, but lost.

When I actually looked at the evidence NPS gave in response, they had stated there were signs in places that there weren't.

I have some photos of the site at the time which had one sign in the corner of the car park.

New signs were then put up within months around the whole car park. 

 

I paid for parking at a machine directly in front of the car park as it appeared this was for this car park. 

I have all letters and the original parking ticket.

I can upload all these when I can figure out how to do one PDF! 

 

Should I respond with anything specific?

I have read about the acknowledgement letter asking for further info not provided in the letter of claim or I am considering the "without predujice" offer of £60 because I don't want to end up at court! 

 

What would people suggest? 

Thank you for your input. 

[dx100uk]

there are numerous threads here now whereby NPS have sent a letter of claim.

 

a suitable reply is in this thread at post 26.

 

 

but you need to read all the recent NPS threads to fully understand the issues here over change of name

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=nps&oq=nps&gs_l=partner-generic.3...73235.74528.0.75280.3.3.0.0.0.0.137.275.2j1.3.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.1322j926330j3...1.34.partner-generic..3.0.0.fTj8hU0PxmY

[dx100uk]

if you read upload

it describes how and what to do for PDF files

your info may well be invaluable to everyone else here

as you have kept everything inc sign photos from the time

 

well done!

 

[BudgieH]

Hi Dx100uk.

I kept everything as I had a feeling I might need it one day!! 

I only have a phone so took multiple images, converted to PDF but over the limit. I will figure it out asap! 

I read the other posts too that you referred to but I got very lost! 

Also, not sure if relevant but I appealed as the driver and letters are to the registered keeper. 

Thanks. 

[FTMDave]

Yes, it was a mistake to out yourself as the driver and the people who run the IAS are also the people who run the IPC and the solicitors' office that IPC members generally use - no conflict of interest there! - so they never accept appeals ever.

 

However, not all is lost, these letters are obviously meant to scare motorists into thinking they've got serious about legal action.  Those that don't know the law will wet themselves and pay, which is what the fleecers are interested in.

 

Pity though they can't even get the company name right!  Send off the letter that EB & DX suggest (though after posting your stuff which will help everyone).  There are no guarantees, but the chances are the conmen will then crawl back under their stone.    

[BudgieH]

You are right, I was stupid and very naive.

 

Wow. No wonder I didn't win my appeal. 

 

I am that person that was tempted to pay!

Until I started reading these threads.

 

I am worried that response would antagonise, is there a more formal response? 

 

What company name is incorrect?

Mine have remained the same throughout. 

Thanks! 

 

 

docs1_.pdf

[dx100uk]

that is the intension of the letter

 

you'll soon get the idea once you read a few of those threads I posted in the google link

 

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Nothing wrong with being naive - been there, done that!

 

Your point about "antagonising" has been brought up numerous times over the years.

 

It's a good idea to understand things tactically & legally.  These companies are conmen, simple as that.  They send out demands for money that in many cases are not owed, indeed in this case EB has done some digging and discovered that you're being threatened by a company that didn't even exist when you parked!  They don't really want to do court where their lies could be exposed (NPS are known for not doing court and if their case is so great why have they twiddled their thumbs for over three years?) plus, even if they win they lose, in the sense that they are so stupid they can't do a court case on their own and so use a solicitor whose costs far outweigh the small amount of costs they can claim back in the small claims court.

 

What they are interested in is the THREAT of court to get motorists to cough up.  So all the rubbish about you having a disastrous credit history, you suffering thousands of pounds of legal costs, your kids being sold into slavery, you being hung, drawn & quartered, etc.

 

Conclusion - the sort of person who is polite, takes them seriously & engages with their crooked appeals procedure is exactly the type of person they will see as a mug & go after for cash and could conceivably start legal action against.  Whereas the type of motorist who ridicules their case as pants and shows no fear of court is the sort they are likely to see as trouble and leave alone.  There are no guarantees, but generally EB's snotty letters do the trick.  Though maybe hold fire for a couple of days while your stuff is posted up, it's likely to be invaluable both to you & others in a similar position.

 

Plus, giving them a torrent of abuse is good fun

 

 

[BudgieH]

Thanks, FTMdave. 

That totally makes sense about them sending those letters. I was the polite one in my responses and go nowhere. 

I thought NPS had been running since 2014? 

Thanks to Dx100uk all my letters are on now. Hopefully it makes things more clear. 

Thank you for people's input so far! 

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for posting up the PCNs etc.

Could you please advise us of the date that the first PCN was sent to you after the windscreen ticket.

That has to be sent within certain times.

 

The charge is that you failed to clearly show your permit.

Does that mean that you had a permit but it was upside down or fallen on the floor of the car for example?

If you have a photo of the sign at the entrance to the car Park-if yes, could you please post it up for us.

 

I am surprised that they have been stupid enough to send a letter of claim under the circumstances but perhaps they are hoping you will pay up rather than go to Court.

 

One of EB's snotty letters may confirm to them not to waste any more money on you.

 

[BudgieH]

Hello. 

Do you mean the first notice to keeper? That was the 12th July. 

 

Notice to driver via ticket 5th April. 

 

The driver didn't have a permit.

The car park was entered thinking the sign directly in front of the car belonging to local council was for that space (the photos are in post 6). 

 

There was a sign on the wall but wasn't clear when driving in to the car park.

It is in post 6 and on the wall.

The "entrance" is just a gap in the walkway from the road. 

 

I have sent the original ticket across. 

[FTMDave]

19 hours ago, BudgieH said:

I thought NPS had been running since 2014? 

 

It looked like that to me too - maybe hold fire with your letter for 24 hours to see if EB comes on.

 

It's highly unlikely they will take you to court after an EB snotty letter, but if they did their carp signage & the fact the case is prohibition would see them off.

[BudgieH]

Thanks. 

I am conscious of the deadline approaching but will hold on and hopefully EB's knowledge will help. 

Do you know if it is true that they can't allow 56 days to pass from NTD and NTK? 

[dx100uk]

pdf post 6 updated.

you have until 8th dec.

 

it is worthy to note the NTK is outside of the 29 - 56 days time limit.

 

dx

[BudgieH]

Thanks for adding.

8th December for what? Do I not have to reply within the 14 days to acknowledge the letter of claim?

Thanks. 

[dx100uk]

no its 30 days as they quote the pre action protocol.

you see they can't even get that right.!!

 

 

[BudgieH]

Thank you again.

I read that document online but paragraph 6a and b, which now states 14 days. Did I read the wrong one? 

 

[dx100uk]

pap is 30 days always has been

 

dx

 

[BudgieH]

Ah. I see the difference in time scales between the one they cited in their letter of claim and the 'pre-action protocol for debt' 

Thanks! 

[BudgieH]

Can I just ask another question in relation to the company names so I am clear myself? 

I have read about the different companies NPS and NPS (NE). 

I understand NPS was dissolved in Jan 2016. 

NPS (NE) incorporated in 2014. 

On the signs at the time (April 2016) they still mention NPS trading under NPS (NE). Is this allowed? 

Then also, although the letters appear to be from NPS, they have the new company name on the back at very the bottom with the new company number. So does this cover them? 

Thanks!

[dx100uk]

good background 

but doesnt really matter at this PAPLOC stage

just make sure you reply by the 30days 

 

and ofcourse their NTK was out of time too.

so noway they'll go near acourt.

 

its just a mass mailing of several 1000's of people I expect hoping some have movedor wet themselves and cough up, ignore and bobs your uncle they have a CCJ guaranteed.

 

I bet anyone that replies their case goes nowhere after that.

just after easy money for the sake of a few uses of a franking machine.

numbers game.

 

dx

 

[BudgieH]

Thanks. I am trying to understand all the info in the threads and apply to ours. 

Was optimistically wishing you had said they'd broken some other rule having the old signs up!

Will await Ericbrothers so I know exactly what I am replying with! 

 

[BudgieH]

Sorry, I have another question! 

Just looking at the letter of claim. 

They have said "a pcn was issued to the registered keeper on 5/4/16"

That is obviously untrue as it was a NTD on that date. Even if that was the case, doesn't 28 days have to have passed? 

They are idiots! 

[dx100uk]

windscreen pcn is 29-56 for NTK

anpr capture PCN is within 14 days NTK

 

you didn't receive an NTD

it is worthy to note the NTK is outside of the 29 - 56 days time limit.

[ericsbrother]

can you also check the signage they rey on as NPS(northern) is a member of the BPA, not the IPC.

the NPS that was wound up and nowt to do with this co were IPC.

 

Now I have already posted that I smell a rat with this flurry of letters beng sent out recently as they refer to sites that appear to have been under the management of the company that went out of business and not this lot.

These lot cant claim any rights or agency as the 2 are not associated.

 

We need to see all of the paperwork from back then and also the exact signage, preferably from then and now.

 

IF you dont have that then you should respond by saying what I put in that other thread.

 

This is just a holding action for the moment but it will force them to show what authority they do have and as you can see,

 

I doubt that it holds water because if it was watertight they would have started suing people 2 years ago