NCP/BW ANPR PCN Claimform -paid- no dispensed ticket- Cheltenham Portland ST East *** Claim Dismissed***

[annoyedyep]

Thanks for all comments and help with this!

I've reattached letters as PDF.

 

JUNE-2019.pdf

[dx100uk]

as post 14

[FTMDave]

 Feel free to post

[annoyedyep]

Thanks to everyone who has commented and viewed on this thread. I also went to my local CAB, and they suggested that I call my 'Free Legal Advice helpline' that comes with your car insurance and/or home insurance. That was quite useful as I would not have thought of ringing them. Plus the suggestions and reassurance from that free legal call was very helpful. 

 

NCP and BW Legal decided to take my case all the way to the court, however I won the case.

 

BW Legal called me a few times to try and persuade me to rethink about going to court and sent various 'special deal' offers before my court date, but the more I read about BW Legal and their tactics, the more I was determined to prove that I had paid. They then sent an advocate to the hearing from Ashley Taylors Legal instead of their own firm. 

 

As the court date was during the early part of COVID lockdown I had the hearing over the phone.

 

I spent a long time writing my defence but it was commented on as being a robust and reliable account of events, so if you end up going to court then don't skim the details.  

 

I asked for various bits of evidence from NCP, most importantly, the cash ledger from the pay machine to match against the parking records. That would have shown that the total amount of cash taken from the machine did not balance with the parking logs, no surprise then that it was not given.

 

I asked for this numerous times in my appeals and my defence, and the judge agreed that NCP should have been in a position to give this evidence at court. Instead in their final statement they only provided the parking logs with various car reg numbers that parked there during that same day, but as my car reg was not on the sheet, I guess the legal team thought it was a clear win for NCP.    

 

BW Legal also stated that I should have called the helpdesk number (on the signage) about the display ticket not being printed. I did read that this happens quite regularly, and a lot of people get picked up on, 'Why didn't you ring the parking helpline number with your problem?'. So I was prepared for this questioning. 

 

I didn't get many questions from the solicitor, but the judge had a few questions for me, mainly about my familiarity with the car park. I was not a regular visitor to this car park, so I think this was also in my favour. 

 

In the end I believe that my case was dismissed because it came down to the judge not being happy with the NCP signs.

They were classed as being inconsistent.

 

The one next to the machine stating that a display ticket was not necessary as the car park uses ANPR tech, but then the main T&Cs board having various references that the display ticket details were important to prove the validity of the parking stay.

 

With these being inconsistent the judge made the call that the signage was conflicting and confusing to drivers and so it wasn't very clear at all that I should have called the helpline. 

 

This was the overriding message that was given, so in the end the evidence to prove whether or not I had paid for parking wasn't questionable as the judge wasn't happy with the overall T&Cs.  

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory!

 

Thanks for coming back and letting us know what happened in court.

Edited June 19, 2020 by FTMDave

[brassnecked]

Excellent win, shows the importance of assessing and checking signage.

[AndyOrch]

Topic title updated.

 

Andy

[ericsbrother]

yes indeed, well done.

 

A couple of comments about what you say regarding the hearing.

The judge saying your evidence was robust and reliable translates as the other side are a useless  bunch of liars but that cant be said.

 

the reason NCP wouldnt show the logs is because they know they can check every detail but then they cant issue a demand for £100 to anyone that has done a typo in their input. Thye make MUCH more money out of rooking people than they do out of the management of the car park. in some cases they do this for free in return for the right to harass motorists so showing the logs kills their business model.

 

the judge questioned you about your familiarity with the place because it would be reasonable that a habitual user would read the sigsn ad be expected to do so and try and understand what has been offered before feeding the machine. It is the lack of familiarity that makes the wording etc fall under the unfair contracts regs and parts of the consumer rights act, if you said you went there all the time blah blah the matter then falls under the Beavis decision which makes it essentially a commercial contract and not a  consumer one.

 

the parking co needs to prove its claim and by refusing to show they had a case they really shot themselves in the foot and made it easier for the judge to reach the conclusion they did. You may well have had other winning points but there was no need to address these as their claim had already failed.

 

their advocate clearly thought they ahd been handed a hospital pass and decided to say nothing rather then get an earwigging from the judge. It may be that the same person had other claims to present so wasnt going to waste all of the ammunition on this one when the outcome was unlikely to be in their favour from the outset