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

[FTMDave]

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 November 25, 2020 by FTMDave

[FTMDave]

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.  

 

 

[FTMDave]

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.

[FTMDave]

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 November 27, 2020 by FTMDave

[FTMDave]

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.

[FTMDave]

Yes, go for it.

[FTMDave]

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 November 27, 2020 by FTMDave
Usual typo!

[FTMDave]

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.

[FTMDave]

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!

[FTMDave]

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.

[FTMDave]

BW Legal are unable to provide proof of planning permission, despite asking their clients.  Of course they BS a lot, but that's what it comes down to.

 

It's like someone saying "I am not aware of any challenge or enforcement action being taken (or contemplated) against me for not insuring or MOTing my car", while the car sits outside without insurance or MOT.  It basically means I haven't been caught yet!

 

What the hell does "the registered proprietor to the leasehold title" mean?  Are NCP, for once, the landowner?  Or have I got this wrong?

 

At least their rubbish confirms what you reckon you did "wrong", not paying to park.

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, dx100uk said:

why have you uploaded the same PCN 5 times?

It's one PCN with three tedious reminder letters, sent roughly a month apart.

OP, the first boring reminder letter still has your registration number showing, you might want to remove that - best to keep the fleecers guessing!

[FTMDave]

BN is right.  "On the papers" = no chance to counter their lies.  You need to oppose this.

[FTMDave]

Depends on your objective here.

 

As dx says, you will, eventually, get to see their evidence in the WS.

 

However, they have a statutory duty to reply to a SAR and you can sue them for not doing so.  Have a little think about if this is something you're prepared to do.

[FTMDave]

I've reread your thread from the start, and before we go any further two important questions.

 

1.  NCP start off by sending their demands to the company, then after a while the letters are addressed to you.  How did this happen?  To be blunt, did you write to NCP and tell them you were the driver?

 

2.  Do motorists have to input their registration number when they pay at this car park?

 

EDIT  The answer to my question (2) is "yes", I've seen in your photos that there is written on the machine display "Please enter full license plate details".

Edited October 20, 2021 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

In any case let's be optimistic for a minute and say "prove I'm the driver" is a good defence point.  The problem is that if the judge doesn't agree you immediately lose the case.  "Prove I'm the driver" needs to be one of several points.

 

1.  Locus standi.  NCP are not the landowner.  You do not believe they have the right to bring this claim.  You requested to see a contract with the landowner giving them such a right by way of a CPR request and their solicitors refused to do so.  Exhibit BW Legal's letter.

 

2.  Suing the wrong person.  Your "prove I'm the driver" point.  (Obviously this will have to go if you admitted being the driver to NCP).

 

3.  Insufficient signage.  Tiny print.  What LFI wrote in post 29.

 

4.  Planning permission.  You do not believe their signs have planning permission which is a criminal offence.  You requested to see such permission from their solicitors but the solicitors refused to do so.  (Have a look at the WS in post 123 of EL21's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430570-vcs-2vanishing-windscreen-pcns-now-claimform-brook-retail-car-park-ruislip/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-5130039  You can adapt point 41 of this WS).

 

5.  De minimis.  The incident happened four years so you are unsure what happened.  It's possible you paid but you input your registration number wrongly.  You put NCP to strict proof you didn't pay.  Paying but getting a single digit of the registration number wrong is de minimis.

 

6.  Unreasonable conditions.  In any case NCP deliberately make it difficult to pay so they can issue PCNs.  No cash.  Card payment which often doesn't work and they do nothing to fix.

 

7.  Unicorn Food Tax.  (You can use nigh-on verbatim points 45-53 of EL21's WS).

 

As dx says, you're a Litigant in Person so you don't have to write in legalese.  When you have time, post up a first draft and we'll take it from there. 

 

And please answer about how NCP suddenly started to write to you personally.

[FTMDave]

OK, so when you have time flesh out the points I've written in a draft WS and we'll take it from there.

 

Include your "prove I'm the driver" point.  If it fails it fails.  The important thing is to have other points as well to challenge their claim.

 

I directed you to post 123 in EL21's thread, long story but you may find the attachment instead in post 120 there.

 

You can sue NCP for not responding to your SAR.  They have a statutory duty to do so.  Have a think about if you want to go down that road and let us know.

 

 

[FTMDave]

On 27/10/2021 at 14:15, BickLinc said:

Regarding suing NCP for ignoring the SAR, isn’t my case rather weak unless I find the proof of postage?

Apologies, I missed this point.

 

Yes, it does massively weaken your case.

 

How on earth are you losing paperwork in the middle of a serious legal dispute?