Jump to content


NCP/BW ANPR PCN Claim Form - Lincoln Brayford Street Lincoln LN5 7BJ


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 144 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Good Afternoon guys!

 

Name of the Claimant: National Car Parks Limited

 

Claimants Solicitors: BW Legal

 

Date of issue: 27th October 2020

 

Date for AOS: 5th November (AOS was completed on 10th November)

 

Date to submit Defence: 29th November (This is a Sunday so: 27th November)

 

What is the claim for: 

1.The Claim is for the sum of £189 being the contractual charge due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 05/11/2018 in the private car park/land at Lincoln Brayford Street Lincoln LN5 7BJ in relation to a ******** registration mark *** ****.

 

2.The PCN was issued as the Defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions, as displayed.

 

3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpaid.

 

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 £O.04) from 05/11/2018 to 26/10/2020 being an amount of 29.

 

The Claim also includes £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice."

 

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

Amount Claimed: £189

Court Fees:  £25

Legal Rep Fees: £50

Total Amount: £264

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little more information from me:

 

This alleged offense occurred two years ago and the vehicle in question was a hire car, hired by my small company.

I'm genuinely unable to recall the event.

 

I did drive that particular vehicle most of the time.

I do not recall if I informed them I was driver at that point (I may have done to avoid damaging the company as these sorts of letters fall on my desk) or if the hire company informed them that I was the named driver. 

 

I realise that I've left it quite late to do my defence, I've been reading the forums and pondering what to put for some time.

I feel like a defence of "I don't know" sounds ridiculous but I also would rather take my chances playing their game and potentially ending up in court.

 

I cannot imagine they would want to get to that point for the expenses they will incur for £264 or less.

Happy to be corrected on this if wrong? 

 

Any tips and advice is gratefully received?

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to NCP/BW ANPR PCN Claim Form - Lincoln Brayford Street Lincoln LN5 7BJ

 get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]

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]

 

.........................

 

use our 2 -5 line defence in most pcn claimform threads here use our search top right

 

pop it up here 1st mind

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PPCs don't like doing court because even if they win the full amount they'll ending up paying more to a solicitor to represent them, but on the other hand if they never ever take anyone to court they'll be known as paper tigers.

 

I'm afraid a court case is up & running against you and you'd better get prepared for going to court.  They probably sent you a Letter Before Claim and the fact you didn't answer it will have flagged you up as someone who might not defend a court claim and they would win by default.

 

The defence we always suggest is very short and basically says you broke no contract with the PPC, so filing something generic in an emergency is no problem.

 

However, is this place local to you?  Can you easily go back in the next few days, take pictures of the signs, and try to suss out what the fleecers reckon you did wrong?

 

 

Edited by FTMDave

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for those replies.

 

Dx, I'll get that CPR off ASAP. Would you mind clarifying when you say "use our 2 -5 line defence". Does this literally mean a defense thats 2 to 5 lins in length? Many thanks!

 

Dave, you're absolutely correct. I always ignore letters from these sorts of firms. The place is very local so no bother at all to get back there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes exactly that 3 lines, is usually enough you only expand on that if it goes to court and you have to submit a Witness statement.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so as time is running out ...

 

Get the CPR off tomorrow with a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

 

Get down to the car park, take photos of the signs, try to suss out what they reckon you did wrong.  I see it's a P&D car park so presumably you didn't pay or stayed longer than you paid for (although there seems to be a barrier on exit so how did you get out?!)

 

Normally we say to check with the council if the car park has planning permission for its signs, but this is a multi-storey car park so presumably they bothered with PP!

 

Look in the PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, any thread with "claimform" in the tile should have an example of a defence.  Post up a draft of what you propose to send, it needs to be as generic as possible. 

 

The important thing at the moment is filing the defence.  In the longer term, once we get hold of their letters (either through CPR or a SAR if they refuse to reply to the CPR) we can see what other holes to pick in their claim.  

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve read the last few years of successes looking at defence points and as people seem to be a little less hopeless than me and haven’t left it so late and already have pictures of signage etc I’ve collected the points that seem to work with the vagueness I need at this point. 

 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2. 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 not 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 carpark 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.] *unsure on this bit 🤔

 

3. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

 

 

I noticed people had used variations on the following, but I assume it’s not possible in this case, don’t NCP usually own their land?

 

”It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a. The car park signs are owned by National Car Parks Limited. Under CPR 31.14 I have requested evidence of the claimants contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.”

 

The CPR has been sent. I’m heading down to get photographs in the morning but my defence has to be in by 4pm.

 

FTMDave - Thanks for your reply. The NCP I parked in is directly opposite the multi-story NCP you have found. No barrier at this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your situation the defence has to be as generic as possible, and certain bits may later turn out to be pants, but that doesn't matter, it only takes one point to be picked up later by a judge in your WS to scupper NCP.

 

It's good news that the car park isn't the one I found!  It's likely NCP are "managing" the car park for someone else and may not have planning permission for their signs.  So how about (point 1 is as generic as hell) ...

 

1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.

 

2.  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 only contracted 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.

 

2.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

3.  I believe that the claimant did not obtain planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

 

Hang on till the last minute tomorrow (well, say 3pm, not exactly the last minute!) to see what their signage says and to see if others want to tweak the defence.

 

And obviously, in future don't throw away paperwork when you're in legal dispute and don't leave building up a case until a few hours before legal deadlines.  However what is done is done and it is still possible to fight back.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have to go into Lincoln tomorrow, as well as the CPR request you've sent to the solicitors, send a SAR to NCP (with the usual free Certificate of Posting from the PO).  That way they'll be forced to show the letters they've sent you and explain what they reckon you did wrong (of course not stated in their pants roboclaim), and if they don't get their backsides into gear with a SAR it'll be you suing them!  All of this info. will be very useful down the line.

 

Oh and stick into the defence something about them inventing fictitious fees they aren't entitled to to attempt to try to get around the small claims' limit on legal costs which is an abuse of court procedure (I note they've made up a load of Unicorn Food Tax).  

Edited by FTMDave

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, you've leaped into action!  Those photos are great, thanks.

 

Have you filed the defence yet?  If not, I'm thinking about a last-minute tweak.  I see that this is a P&D car park where you also have to input your registration number.  There's a possibility you paid but got the registration number wrong, which would be very positive and considered a triviality by a judge.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't submitted yet, following your advice and waiting until 3pm-ish :)

 

I checked back through my work calendar thoroughly and I believe I remember the day in question and think I'm likely in the wrong. Is it safe/wise to explain here?

Edited by BickLinc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Around the time I used that carpark quite frequently and would always pay on the App. I don't often carry change and the pay machines there were notorious for not connecting for card payments - NCP always blamed Vodafone's coverage.  

 

If my dates are correct, I had a new staff member with me on that day and we were headed for lunch. I was also in a hire car. As the hire car wasn't registered to the parking App I think it's highly likely I intended to pay for the parking when sat down for lunch but ultimately failed to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's up to you, but I would consider two things.

 

1.  If you wanted to give in, the time to give in would have been at the start.  They're now suing you and if you pay now you'll have to pay their costs, and if it goes to a court case and you lose you'll have to pay their costs, so in a sense you might as well continue the fight.

 

2.  Although you were "in the wrong", it's perfectly possible that NCP don't have planning permission or sent out their demand too late, or will simply discontinue if you put in a robust Witness Statement.

 

Meanwhile I've tweaked the defence a bit, see if others agree or disagree.

 

1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.

 

2.  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 only contracted 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.

 

3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

4.  I believe that the claimant did not obtain planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

 

5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.

 

Edited by FTMDave
Usual typo!

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

NCP are bound to have messed up somewhere.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to go to work now so that's me out of the deadline day loop.

 

If you don't want to fight it, then simply don't file a defence.  After a few days you'll get a letter from the court saying you've lost by default, you pay, the whole thing ends there with no credit file problems.

 

However, as you really have nowt to lose, we would encourage you to file the defence.  For a start, it's not just OK that motorists continually have problems paying by card.  It's up to NCP to sort out the mess.  Not everyone has their mobile on them 25 hours a day or time to be faffing around downloading apps.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not planning on backing out now. Just wanted to be upfront and accurate with members on here. 

Let's play their game. 😃

 

From reading as much possible so far, am I correct in thinking that with some robust points, even if they were to be victorious in court, it is likely that they would have their frivolous "Unicorn Food Tax" charges reigned in? That's the impression I'm getting from other posts.

 

Again, thank you all so much for your assistance thus far, it's sincerely appreciated!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant attitude!  Yes, you're right about the Unicorn Food Tax.  The SAR should clear things up and give clearer grounds for fighting the claim.  Must dash!

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say when you come to do your Witness statement that the font sizes on their main signs, especially at the entrance, are too small.  You cannot get the gist of what their terms and conditions are while driving past.

 

As their is a payment meter, their T&Cs should be on the meter so that you know what you are paying for and what their terms are.  The small sign on the meter does not look like it can contain all their terms. 

 

I am sorry to ask you this but would it be possible to take a close up of the notice on the meter so that it can be read. The sign on the meter may be enough on its own to get the Judge to throw the case out despite the signage next door to it.

 

Also they cannot charge any more than the £100 on their signs but as they are using BW Legal it is no surprise.

 

No doubt once we see the PCNS and their WS there will be more that will help you winning.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court

What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work from lookinforinfo.

 

When you have time, also try to find out if they have planning permission for the signs.  The council should have a portal, if not directly call or e-mail the council.

 

You've written "the pay machines there were notorious for not connecting for card payments - NCP always blamed Vodafone's coverage".  Have you got any proof of this?  It could be useful.

 

BW Legal won't send anything about planning permission or contracts, but they might , just, send a copy of the PCN so we know what you are being pursued for, but even if they don't the SAR will get to the bottom of it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

What an idiot I am! I went back to get these images of the sign the very next day but then got caught up in life and forgot to upload them here. 

 

I've today also received a response from BWLegal which i will upload too after editing out personal details.

14050A9C-D941-40FB-AFCD-DC98E32A7038-converted-compressed.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...