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

[FTMDave]

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.

[FTMDave]

I don't want to come over as all pessimistic, but a PPC which might think it too much hassle to start a court claim for a single invoice might get all motivated by the thought of £££££ when there are four.  That's why I hoped the second two invoices were not NCP.  Anyway, cross that bridge ...  The first two are connected to one incident, so let's deal with that first with the snotty letter.

 

I suggest you open a new thread for the two hotel car park invoices as the circumstances were quite different.

 

How about this for a snotty letter which heavily hints their case is pants while not playing your cards too early -

 

 

Dear BW Legal,

 

Re: PCN no. XXXXX

 

cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the thought you reckoned I'd actually take such tripe seriously and cough up!

 

Of course you've been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so, you'd have seen the driver did nothing wrong.  It really is your clients' own fault if they continue to buy their machines second hand for £9.99 on eBay.

 

Your greedy clients scored a bad, bad own goal by including £60 Unicorn Food Tax.  Some homework for you - go and look up point 9 in the government's Code of Practice.

 

Your clients can either drop this foolishness now or get an absolute hammering in court.  Both are fine by me.  I would enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending it all on a nice foreign holiday while laughing at your clients' expense.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD

 

 

However, there's no rush, hang on for a week or so and see what the other regulars think.

 

Can you confirm they have made up £60 Unicorn Food Tax and the LoC is for £160?

[FTMDave]

10 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

The principal debt on the Letter of Claim is £160 (that's broken down in a statement as £100 principle balance + Total Debt Recovery Costs of £60)

Excellent news.  The extra £60 was already not allowed in POFA 2012 but is now specifically ruled out in the government's new Code of Practice.  So a nice own goal from NCP.

 

10 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

I was thinking I may be in a pickle with 3 claims running.

It's not the end of the world by any means, just (a) if there are several tickets the PPC will likely consider litigation more than they would have otherwise and (b) a judge might think that at least some of the tickets were justified.

 

10 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

But they have all been issued well after 14days from the date of the contravention, so technically as the keeper of the vehicle I am not liable. Am I right?

Yes, you are right.  Another mess up from NCP which will help you immensely.

 

Apologies for my own maths.  I thought there were two earlier tickets and two later hotel car park tickets.  But I now realise there was only one earlier ticket.  So if I've got it right -

 

14/10     No payment taken     PCN issued

18/10     No payment taken     No PCN issued

20/10     You phone and try to sort things out with NCP

 

If this is right then there is further evidence that their technology was rubbish - on 18/10 not only did they not take the money but they didn't realise you were there and didn't issue a PCN!

[FTMDave]

Things seem to have got a bit confused.

 

Why not simply send the snotty letter that is drafted?

[FTMDave]

You include the points about the Unicorn Food Tax & the government's CoP on the issue, plus threats to make a hole in their wallet if they did do court.

 

However, the PPCs go to great pains to pretend they are some sort of official body with their deadlines, procedures and internal CoPs which is why we ridicule them in snotty letters to show they have been sussed as the charlatans they are and that any court action would cost them dearly.

 

However, it's up to you.

 

There are of course no guarantees whatever version of a letter is sent, but we've generally found over the years the snottier the better.  The more polite someone is, the more the fleecers think they can be pushed into paying.

 

Gick is right in the post above.

[FTMDave]

On 07/05/2022 at 08:48, MoaningCrusader said:

To be honest, I can't remember exactly what was said, so I guess we need to hope that they have not kept any recording of the conversation.

I doubt very much they have a copy but if by some freak they have I reckon it would help you.  You would have proof of trying to pay, their software being carp and your bending over backwards to contact them to try to pay.

 

If you want to be absolutely sure I suggest this.

   1.  Send the snotty letters in the next couple of days.  Get a free Certificate of Posting.

   2.  Wait a week and then SAR NCP.  Usual free CoP.  Stick in some ID like a Council Tax bill otherwise they will find an excuse to not reply.

 

NCP are not particularly litigious and they will know their software was useless but you're absolutely right to be pessimistic and therefore to plan ahead for what might come next.  There are loads of NCP threads here you can read up on. 

[FTMDave]

We are starting to go round in circles.

 

The regulars here keep preparing snotty letters - which the OP doesn't want to send.

 

So now it's up to the OP what they decide to do.

 

 

[FTMDave]

The important thing is to send something back and put the ball firmly in NCP's court.

 

Send to both BW Legal and NCP and get two free Certificates of Posting.

 

It's a good idea to have a little gap between the snotty letter and the SAR anyway, so coming back to the forum next week is fine.

[FTMDave]

BW Legal are bottom of the barrel solicitors who work with the crooked private parking companies.

 

Ignore all this rubbish about NCP having given up the case.  This is standard bilge intended to scare you into thinking things have somehow escalated a level.  It's nonsense legally, were there a court case it would be NCP - the creditor - who would sue you.

 

You have - we hope - told them point blank you're not paying after their Letter of Claim.  That's put up or shut up.  Just ignore them now, yours is not the next move. 

 

By all means send you SAR to NCP.  Stick in some I.D. like a Council Tax bill otherwise they will use lack of I.D. as a delaying tactic.

[FTMDave]

You obviously need to get into gear, but you do have some time.  Tuesday is fine.  You will need to

   - acknowledge service with the court

   - send off a CPR request

   - fill in the sticky BN posted.

 

Preparing a Witness Statement will be months away.

 

The best way to understand the legal process is simply to read other threads with "claimform" in the title.

 

Did you SAR NCP as suggested in post 73?

[FTMDave]

The reason I suggested the SAR was because you were concerned that they might have taken notes during your phone call, and you may have outed yourself as the driver.  It was to find out one way or the other.

 

Forget about unreasonable costs for now, that's for the very end if they continue with the court case and if you win.

[FTMDave]

Good move in making NCP work!  It will sort out the phone call question once and for all.

 

BW Legal will only have a tiny amount of information on you which will have come from NCP anyway, so it'd be pointless SARing them.  If however you would enjoy wasting their time - go for it!

 

At this stage just a generic short defence which doesn't play all your cards is fine.

 

A fortnight before the hearing you will have an opportunity to file a detailed Witness Statement demolishing the fleecers' case.

Edited August 3, 2022 by FTMDave
Typos

[FTMDave]

Well done on filing the defence.

 

Their letter is par for the course.

 

However, in a small way it will help.  Two arguments we almost always include in WSs are locus standi and planning permission.  In your WS you will be able to add that, although they replied to a CPR request, they refused to show their contract with the landowner and you believe they do not have locus standi, and they refused to provide proof of planning permission and you believe their signs are illegal and no contract can be performed where illegality is concerned.

 

Actually, thinking about it, it's worth you checking with the local council yourself re PP.  Most councils have a portal where you can look at PP.

 

 

[FTMDave]

You don't mess about, do you?!

 

Great work.  All good ammo to go in the WS later.

[FTMDave]

Best to start a new thread because, even though it's NCP again, the circumstances are completely different, and if it came to court it would be a different claim.

 

Please fill in the sticky as usual and upload the two PCNs.

[FTMDave]

BTW, I found this on the Gatwick Airport site.  Could it explain why trying to pay didn't work?

 

Can I pay the charge whilst still in the drop-off zone?

 

Payments should be made after you exit the drop off zone in order for your vehicle to be recognised by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems and for the correct fee to be calculated for your drop-off session.

[FTMDave]

Understood - I was barking up the wrong tree about why payment wasn't taken.

 

I have a friend who is a software engineer and he's told me several horror stories over the years about important national companies getting software delivered which hadn't been tested properly and was full of bugs, and just didn't work properly - so it's no surprise that NCP's newly-installed system was rubbish.

 

Well done on the family WSs and keeping proof of the phone call.

 

Have an excellent weekend you too!

[FTMDave]

Just ignore BW Legal.  The letter is just a standard one they send out to try to scare people.

 

The dates are irrelevant, they are just pretending there is a deadline (that they have made up) after which things will get terrible for you.

[FTMDave]

All the SAR posts are now in a separate thread.

[FTMDave]

The Magistrates' Court is for criminal cases.  Yours is a civil case - look for the County Court.

 

It's a bad idea to accept the case being judged on the papers.  Firstly, there is no incentive for the fleecers, who are the ones who would have to travel to court, to discontinue.  Secondly, if you're not physically there you can't counter their lies or clarify stuff for the judge. 

[FTMDave]

I think there are these:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/449205-notice-to-keeper-gatwick-ncp/#comment-5167775

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/442849-ncp-gatwick-pcn-out-of-time/#comment-5140224

 

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, dx100uk said:

as for witnesses, pers i would involve nor is there a need to involve, other people, 

Why do you say this dx?

 

Nothing wrong with having a forum discussion now and again to mull over the best way forward!

 

We're only guessing, as it will depend on the SAR and the fleecers' WS, but there's fair chance further down the line that on the one hand there will be the charlatans with no mention at all of their malfunctioning equipment or the OP calling them to try to effect payment, and on the other hand the OP,  proof of the call on their phone, two WSs from witnesses who saw the attempt at payment and heard the phone call and the SAR showing the fleecers did sweet FA about following up the call.

 

Do you not think two brief WSs from other people in the car would be an advantage for the OP?

[FTMDave]

Yes, a difference of opinion is no problem, I've often got things wrong or have been persuaded towards a change of strategy here.  It is a forum after all.

 

I didn't know about the 90-day phone record limit.  Well done in getting this sorted well ahead of time.

[FTMDave]

Yes, it would be ridiculous for your parents to actually travel to the hearing from another country.

 

However, three short written WSs to me seem a good idea.  They can be included as exhibits in your main WS.

 

Yes, put 1 in E3.

 

 

[FTMDave]

I think dx means to sign the copy to the court, but not sign the fleecers' copy (so they can't get up to any forgery with your signature).