Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the message jk2054   I have just been drafting what I want to say and I think its best to focus purely on the supremacy of contract. The reason being that I dont want the judge to start focusing on other parts of my witness statement when surely just the supremacy of contract section alone should be enough to get this dismissed.    The crux of my defense revolves around the principle of Supremacy of Contract. When I purchased my flat in December 2016, the contract explicitly included ownership of parking spot 112, as delineated in the lease documentation provided in Exhibit 1. This documentation unequivocally establishes my right to use and occupy this parking space. Furthermore, the subsequent exhibits, particularly Exhibit 3, clearly depict the marked boundaries of parking spot 112, corroborating my ownership as stated in the lease agreement. Additionally, the official register of title, presented in Exhibit 4, reinforces this ownership claim. Moreover, I draw the court's attention to relevant legal precedents, such as Pace v Mr N and Link Parking v Ms P, which demonstrate that parking companies cannot override a tenant's right to park on designated property. These cases serve as persuasive authorities supporting my argument regarding the Supremacy of Contract in residential parking disputes. It is my contention that the absence of any contractual obligation to display a permit for parking spot 112 absolves me of any liability in this matter. The claimant's failure to acknowledge my ownership rights in their witness statement further underscores the weakness of their case.
    • I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant .... So what if he declared himself as driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver. The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number .... The parking was paid for. I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court. But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies. Pollux, is that a fish like Cod? 😁
    • and more .. As thames water pushes to further rip off captive customers, not get fined for it, and allow more dividends .. for little more than 'aspirations' to do better More detail comes out of the literally and figuratively sh** companies apparently shunting money out of the regulated business to profit/bonus/dividend generating unregulated side companies   "Accounts filed at Companies House show : (Kennets) accounts, filed more than 12 months after the end of Kennet’s financial year, showed that the company made a £1.15m pre-tax profit for the year to 31 March 2023, up from £374,000 a year earlier. Revenues rose to £1.6m in 2023 – up from £1m in "Kennet Properties paid out a £14.5m dividend in the year to 31 March 2023" "Kennet ?takes on? land no longer needed by Britain’s biggest water company before developing it and selling it on, typically for housing or commercial premises. It also received income for the use of sewer networks by third parties for fibre-optic cabling."   Thames Water could raise bills to £627 a year to help fix leaks | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Embattled water supplier promises to invest up to £3bn more over the next five years     Thames Water-linked firm paid £14m in dividends despite concerns over group | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Kennet Properties sells off Thames Water land, whose owner, Kemble Water, has warned it would not be able to pay a £190m loan  
    • I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign. He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price. There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery. To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.
    • Do we have any cases where TFl don't write?  I tried to lookup but couldn't find much. Any idea?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 162 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

I picked up my parents on 14th Oct and dropped them off on 18th Oct 2021 at Gatwick airport. I for all intents and purposes had thought I had paid for these sessions by way of the Gatwick Airport website, and certainly the attempt of payment for the particular 'PCN' I have received was witnessed by my parents while I used my phone to make it.

 

However no payments have ever been taken and no confirmation email was ever sent for both sessions. I called NCP on 20th Oct at 4.19pm to make them aware of my concerns. I was given very vague information about the last parking session and informed there were issues with their system.

 

I told them I didn't want to received a PCN when I have been willing to pay. I have now received one, with no doubt another on its way!

 

What is the best way to appeal this? I have acted in good faith, but sadly have no real proof of what went wrong with payment process.

 

I hope you can help. Or should I just pay the £15 reduced charge and let it go now, as there's nothing I can apparently do to prove my attempted payments? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, no Homer67. This is why I called them on 20th Oct to find out what had happened, as I wanted the receipts for my motoring accounts.

1 Date of the infringement 14/10/2021
 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 22/11/2021
 

3 Date received 24/11/2021
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A
 

7 Who is the parking company? NCP

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Gatwick Airport - Drop Off N Terminal
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.  POPLA

Sorry dx100uk full sticky now above. Please advise. It seems Barrowboy maybe correct on this occasion?

NCPNTK22-11-21.pdf

HB I have. I have yet to receive any other advice to my sticky that filled out?

I don't think I have defence in regards to my thinking I had paid my parking sessions online, but clearly the payments did not process.

Despite my honest attempt to find out what happened to my payments, NCP did not allow me to get to the bottom of it. Is there any point in pursuing this appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NCP PCN - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits?
2 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

I have yet to receive any other advice to my sticky that filled out?

there is absolutely no rush or real need for you to do anything. the process has a long way to go , bar the threat of more fake monetary sums being added for unicorn food tax and fake DCA fees, that scare people...on it's going up.

 

also your point about byelaws is extremely relevant , no PPC can enforce byelaws , only the airport authority can and they cant pass that authority on. it is not ever wise to do anything yet where byelaws are involved. 

 

pers i'd sit on your hands, doing nothing at this stage can never harm you and as with all speculative invoices, until or unless you ever get a letter of claim, there is most def no need too.

 

there is soo much drivel on this thread im not wasting my time looking, but have you checked your online banks A/C to see if the payments were processed, not that it really matters.

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

Moaning Crusader you you have at least four factors in your favour with regards the the ridiculous PCN.

 

1] the PCN is non PoFA compliant

 

2] Gatwick airport is covered by statutory controls as well as Bye Laws. therefore it is not relevant land and the parking companies have no reasonable cause to issue PCNs.

 

PoFA Schedule 4 S8 [2] 

8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

 

The reason that Gatwick airport allows unlawful PCNs to be issued is that they share in the money collected by NCP.  When motorists breach Bye laws and are pursued, any fine they get in Court goes to the Treasury not Gatwick airport authority.

 

3] by their own admittance NCP stated that there were issues with the system. Courts do not allow the parking crooks to make money when their system has flaws

 

4] NCP have breached your rights under GDPR by asking DVLA for your data when they had no reasonable cause. The cheapest way to obtain anywhere around the current figure of £500 is for them to take you to Court so that they pay the Court fees. By appealing now it is much more difficult to get paid for their breach of your GDPR.

 

Time will tell whether there are more reasons why you are not liable to pay this PCN . But above are more than sufficient reasons to prevent NCP from obtaining money from you. Just go about your life safe in the knowledge that if you totally ignore them you could have a £500 bonus at the end.

 

t.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

just type no need to keep hitting quote.

  • Thanks 1

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

You were very quick to come back with the counterclaim comment. There aren't that many cases where the breach of GDPR is so blatant right from the first PCN. There doesn't need to be a counterclaim if the motorist asks for damages and we are still waiting for your thoughts on the NCP signage.

I do realise that you would have been a small cog in BPA's wheel and knowing BPA they would have overruled you had you advised against the NCP Gatwick sign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to clarify. I am being advised to ignore all correspondence to await a court summons, if one should arrive at all.

 

Or is it advisable for me to write a letter from the registered keeper informing them I will not be paying and give the grounds on which why I will not be paying and then ignore all subsequent correspondence from them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

NCP HAVE to abide by the pre action protocol and sent a letter of claim 1st, they normally do (IF IF IF) , they don't normally jump straight to getting northants bulk court to issue a court claim, which comes in a large a4 windowed brown envelope directly from the court.

 

6 minutes ago, MoaningCrusader said:

Or is it advisable for me to write a letter from the registered keeper informing them I will not be paying and give the grounds on which why I will not be paying and then ignore all subsequent correspondence from them?

you do this ONLY if you get a letter of claim, and you find/use one of our snotty letters already on many threads, BUT you post it here 1st for checking!!

 

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

On the whole are NCP particularly litigious, in your opinion? Or do they do the usual 8 escalating letters, then a further 8 or so from the sister debt collection agency and then give up?

 

I have rode out quite a few private parking firms in my time. I do normally respond as the registered keeper and inform them that I will not be disclosing the driver details nor will I be paying their 'unreasonable' parking charge invoice and then ignore any subsequent correspondence. But I am also aware that recently quite a few have started to take court actions.

 

It appears here that the fact that they have failed to send the NTK in time I don't really have to engage with them at all, am I right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The very best idea is to look here yourself then you are not influenced by anyone.

 

type ncp in our search top right

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

Hi dx

 from what I have read so far, it appears I should wait until I have received a 'letter before court claim', and then respond with my complaint in regards to the non POFA & GDPR issues around this particular invoice from NCP, while also drawing their attention to stated system failings in the phone call made on the 20th October by myself at 16:19hrs.

Will I be able to get help with the wording of this response, should the time come?

You have all been very helpful up to now.

I can't thank you enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi Everyone. 

 

Thank you all for your time in commenting above.

 

It has been sometime since I started this thread, and I have been receiving a constant flow of letters from NCP and then BW Legal debt collection agency. I also have two more NTK's that I since received when I thought I had avoided the drop off zone in Gatwick airport by using a hotel forecourt, however they too were both received over 14 days since the contraventions, so I will probably have to follow the same course of action on all of them.

 

I have now unfortunately received my letter of claim from BW Legal, who are the debt collection agency for NCP, for the first contravention. They are requiring me to respond to this letter of claim by the 29th May 2022.

 

I was advised here on my thread to contact you again for further instruction on how to handle the claim, as they had failed to send their Notice to Keeper within the 14days from the apparent contravention.

 

Could you please advise me what I am to do next? I believe you have some standard responses I can use to make my case, or that you could help me complete my Letter of Claim response form sent to me by BW Legal.

 

I hope to hear from you all soon and that we can all deal with this. Do let me know what you will need from me.

 

MoaningCrusader

Link to post
Share on other sites

BW are solicitors not a DCA .

 

You send them a snotty letter.

 

Use our search top right type in ....

BW+snotty+letter

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

Just to be clear - these two invoices after using the hotel forecourt are from a different parking company, not NCP, right?

 

I was also going to ask if you had any proof you'd phoned NCP, but then saw the below.  Well done.

 

On 27/11/2021 at 09:08, MoaningCrusader said:

while also drawing their attention to stated system failings in the phone call made on the 20th October by myself at 16:19hrs.

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

Hi FTMDave,

 

Just to clarify with you, no these further NTKs were from NCP as well.

 

I was informed by a taxi driver that the charge could be avoided by using the hotel pick up area. However, I discovered that wasn't the case. And I received the NTK for both pick up and drop off using this method. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dx

Thanks for that.

I just searched the above, but I am only getting brought to threads, not a letter?

Is there something I'm missing.

Sorry if I'm being a bit search engine illiterate here.

PS once I get into my office I am going to scan the Letter of Claim for you all to see with my details obscure obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes you have read the thread to see the letter in one of its posts. 

 

We know what the loc looks like so don't need anything bar page 1. If at all 

 

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

Thanks Dx

 

I am reading through one of the threads now.

 

Am I right in assuming this letter still does not mean they are actually going to take me to court? Just keep ramping up the threats of doing so?

 

Does it need a response now from me? Or do I wait for the County Court docs to arrive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really mean anything, but you must reply by day 30.

 

Pop your ideas up here 1st 

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...