NSGL/QDR PCN claimform - residential - Century Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 5NP - *** Claim Dismissed***

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi all.  Long time no see.

 

I used to frequent this part of the forum many years ago but my knowledge in this area may be a bit out of date.

 

I've been involved with a bit of a long running battle with a company called NSGL Ltd over the last 6 months or so. 

The driver of my vehicle has been visiting a friend at her apartment complex which has it's parking areas managed by NSGL. 

 

Said resident has an allocated parking space but does not own a car so the driver uses that space whenever they visit. 

 

However the driver has collected approximately 8 invoices over the space of the last few months for parking without displaying a resident's permit, despite leaving a note on the dashboard stating that they are visiting the apartment that the space is allocated to, they get a ticket approximately once every two weeks.

 

The car park is signed as resident permits only (and is forbidding to anyone not displaying a permit) and the signage is very sparse, and access to the underground car park gate is controlled by an electronic fob which the driver has.

 

I've appealed all these charges to the PPC (all denied, no surprises there) and then to POPLA. 

POPLA have apparently only just started processing appeals again after a lengthy hiatus due to Covid, and so far only two of my appeals have been heard. 

 

Despite being exactly the same circumstances and copy/pasting the entire appeal each time, I've had one appeal successful and another rejected (by a different adjudicator).  On this basis I'm expecting around 50% of these appeals to succeed and the others to fail, as it seems to be dependent on the individuals interpretation of the evidence rather than any kind of logical interpretation of law.

 

I've done some digging on NSGL and from what I can see they don't appear to be particularly litigious and don't tend to take people to court and I'm happy to defend the case if they do.  They don't seem to be on the same scale as the bigger rackets like Parking Eye but my only concern is that if the number of POPLA failed appeals stacks up, they might feel like chancing their hand.  

 

But my question is

now that I've exhausted the POPLA route, am I safe for now to just continue to ignore anything else they send, save for actual court papers?

 

Thanks

CD

[dx100uk]

please complete this for one of the failed appeal invoices.

 

next time 

don't appeal . waste of time

and simply removes protection under POFA by identifying the driver.

 

you are safe to ignore everything unless you get a letter of claim from one of the many fake/tame paperwork only solicitors they use

 

dx

 

 

[Cardiff Devil]

Thanks DX.

 

I appealed to the PPC and also to POPLA as the keeper, and have never identified the driver.  Their NTK paperwork is non-compliant with POFA anyway as it does not identify the creditor or state the time period that the vehicle was parked.

 

I'm happy to continue ignoring them, just wanted to double check that there wasn't anything else I needed to do.

 

Thanks

CD

[FTMDave]

Well, there was a case yesterday where a normally non-litigious PPC got carried away by the pound signs and took a motorist to court for several tickets in a residential parking case ...

 

... and got roundly hammered 

 

So as dx says, ignore their silly invoices but put some work into building up a case to undermine them.  Take photos of their rubbish signage.  Take photos of the notes you leave to show you have bent over backwards to be cooperative.

 

Everything is on your side.  There is case law that a resident can delegate their space to a visitor.  Add carp signage, no POFA, prohibition, possession of electronic fob, etc., etc.

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers Dave.  Do you have a link to that case or any further details on it?

 

I already have plenty of notes and photos saved, also links to numerous articles about relevant case law etc.  I'm happy to continue to file their correspondence into the round filing cabinet unless they nut up and try taking me to court.  

 

I've spoken to the resident and she's stated that if it does end up going to court, she's happy to give a signed statement confirming that she is the leaseholder of the apartment and the corresponding parking space and has given my driver full permission to be there. 

 

Thanks

CD

[FTMDave]

The thread regarding yesterday's court case is here.  It's long, but if you read the first couple & last couple of pages you'll get the idea 

The resident-can-delegate-their-space-to-visitor case is on the Parking Prankster's site, I think from 2017.  I have to work now and then watch Sunderland v Ipswich Town, but I promise to look it up and get back to you later this evening

[dx100uk]

ppc successes forum off this one 

 

 

[FTMDave]

Found it!  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html

[Cardiff Devil]

So to my great surprise I returned home today and found a county court claim form from NSGL Ltd on my doormat.  

 

I've been to county court a couple of times but never as the defendant.  I'd appreciate any advice on what to do next.  I know the first order of business is to submit the AOS, but I'm not sure whether I need to do that now or nearer the deadline.

 

I can get a scan of the POC up tomorrow when I get to work but is there any advice anyone can give in the interim on drafting up a defence?

 

Thanks

CD

[Cardiff Devil]

Name of the Claimant : NSGL Ltd

 

Claimants Solicitors: QDR Solicitors Ltd

 

Date of issue – 7th Jan 2021

 

Date for AOS - 26 Jan 2021

 

Date to submit Defence - 9 Feb 2021 

 

What is the claim for

 

 1. The claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle XXXX when parked at Century Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 5NP.

 

2.  The site is managed by the claimant.

 

3.The defendant is the keeper or the driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom act 2012 of the vehicle. 

 

4. Vehicles parking at the site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the site and from part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the claimant.

 

5. On 09.03.2020, the vehicle was parked at the site in breach of the contract, the contravention being not displaying a valid permit. 

 

6.By entering this contract the defendant agreed that they would be liable for £80.00 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

Amount Claimed  £162

court fees £25

legal rep fees £50

Total Amount £237

 

Scanned POC to follow in the morning.

[dx100uk]

We dont need a scan of the poc

Go onto mcol get AOS done

Get our ppc cpr running to qdr

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers DX

 

AOS will be submitted first thing tomorrow.

CPR letter has been drafted and will also be sent tomorrow. 

I've also started drafting a defence.

 

Thanks

CD

[dx100uk]

your defence will simply be our std 3-5 line generic defence.

dont need to draft anything specific.

don't file early not due till 4pm 8th feb

[Cardiff Devil]

AOS submitted and the CPR letter is in the post.

 

Regarding the defence, I've seen the standard generic defence in the sticky threads but what if I need to add extra bits to it, like reference to UKPC vs Miss C (the residential parking case that Dave linked above)?  Or do I just stick to the standard defence for now and include details of those in my evidence pack later?

 

Thanks

CD

[dx100uk]

playing your card is for later yes.

 

when it gets nearer the time, post up your thoughts on it.

don't file without the experts here checking it.

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers DX, I'll work on it on my own for now and post something up in a few days.

 

Is it safe to post any draft defences up here or should I PM them to someone?

[dx100uk]

our std defences are already in the public domain here - no need to ever hide anything

thread title updated

[Cardiff Devil]

This is what I've got so far;

 

1. It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the motor vehicle bearing the registration mark nnnnnnn.

 

2. The defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times that the vehicle was parked at Century Wharf as he was not the driver on the day in question. The claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

3. It is denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  Specifically;

 

i. Paragraph 8 (1)(2)(a) The period that the vehicle was parked was not specified.
ii. Paragraph 8 (1)(2)(h) The creditor was not identified.  The proper creditor would be the landowner.

 

Consequently, it is further denied that the defendant is liable for this charge as the keeper of the vehicle, since the terms of Schedule 4 have not been adhered to by the claimant.

 

4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

5. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the signage at the site states “permit holders only”. Therefore no contract terms or consideration was offered to any driver who was not a permit holder. No contract could have been formed based on these terms so no breach of any kind could have occurred.

 

6. Save for as expressly admitted above, the particulars of this claim are denied in their entirety. It is also denied that the claimant is denied to the relief claimed, or any relief at all.
 

[dx100uk]

no

dont play your cards.

 

and dont file any embarrassed type reply

[FTMDave]

I think I know where you got that defence from, but it's outdated now.  It needs to be cut down to the bare bones.  The time for playing your cards is your Witness Statement further on.

 

Have a look in the PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, start from the last page, and look at threads with "claim form" in the title.  There will be loads of examples of defences that you can tweak.

 

BTW, do I take it that on the occasions that your car was at this residential complex, that you weren't the driver of the car?

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers DX and Dave. 

 

I got that defence from the sticky threads at the top of the page in this subforum.  As I said before it's just a draft.  So take out anything specific regarding signage at the site etc?  Am I leaving in the parts about POFA for now or leave that until later as well?  I'll have a look at some recent threads in PPC successes in the meantime and find out some more info.

 

That's correct, a family member uses the vehicle on occasion to visit a friend at their apartment complex.  However, said family member doesn't like confrontation and would likely just pay up if I was to name them as the driver, so I'm quite happy to deal with this as the registered keeper as there's no legal requirement to name the driver?

 

Thanks

CD

[lookinforinfo]

Just write this 

Dear QDR ,

I am assuming that the D in your middle name stands for Disney.

 

Your letter certainly would not be out of place if written by Mickey Mouse.

You don;t even know if you are pursuing the driver or the keeper!

You do know that I have already won an earlier PCN on exactly  the same charge in exactly the same place from your client at POPLA?  But due diligence was never your strong point. You could also take a look at tenants rights of derogation before  continuing with this case. You are already a laughing stock which you surely would not like to be confirmed in Court as well.

 

 

On another note  could you please complete this just in case they don't bottle out-

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[dx100uk]

22 hours ago, Cardiff Devil said:

Name of the Claimant : NSGL Ltd

 

Claimants Solicitors: QDR Solicitors Ltd

 

Date of issue – 7th Jan 2021

 

Date for AOS - 26 Jan 2021

 

Date to submit Defence - 9 Feb 2021 

 

What is the claim for

 

 1. The claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle XXXX when parked at Century Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 5NP.

 

2.  The site is managed by the claimant.

 

3.The defendant is the keeper or the driver named in accordance with Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom act 2012 of the vehicle. 

 

4. Vehicles parking at the site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the site and from part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the claimant.

 

5. On 09.03.2020, the vehicle was parked at the site in breach of the contract, the contravention being not displaying a valid permit. 

 

6.By entering this contract the defendant agreed that they would be liable for £80.00 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incurred by the claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

Amount Claimed  £162

court fees £25

legal rep fees £50

Total Amount £237

 

Scanned POC to follow in the morning.

 

LFI...the OP has a court claim.^^

 

don't enter into baiting letter tennis.

[lookinforinfo]

I am not having a good day today. I misread it as a Letter of Claim. Wae'n flin gen i Cardiff Devil. [That is sorry in Welsh].

[FTMDave]

You just need a couple of lines.  Something like you weren't the driver so couldn't have entered into a contract with NSGL.  And in any case the driver followed the terms of the contract.  NSGL aren't entitled to anything and can go and f themselves.  Just make it a bit more formal