NCP/BW ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - appealed refused- Gatwick Airport dropoff zone **CLAIM DISCONTINUED**

[FTMDave]

Well the fleecers have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory through presumably being too lazy to read e-mails properly.

 

Great news!

 

They are suing the wrong person.

 

This is not just the usual case here where they haven't bothered to use POFA correctly, they have been told the name of the person driving and have instead sued someone else.

[westlondonmum]

@lookinforinfomy apologies for not replying! The address on the NTK and the one on BW Legal's letters are exactly the same and are our current address (and has been for many years)

 

Also, my husband did indeed respond. He wrote a long letter to them authorising them to speak to me on his behalf, AFTER I sent them the email telling them I was the driver. 

[dx100uk]

at some point soon email comms must be stopped and they need to be told so,

 

dx

 

[westlondonmum]

@dx100uk sent this evening 

[lookinforinfo]

That is a shame he sent that confirmation.

 

You responded as the driver but under the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 it is the keeper who must inform the parking company the name and address of the driver.

 

Had he not done so, both of you would have been in the clear. The PCN is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 which means that the keeper is not responsible for the debt and had he not confirmed you as driver that would have been the end of it. Westlondonmum 1 NCP  0.

 

We can but hope that NCP continue to pursue your husband so please do not tell them where  they are going wrong.

 

Still strange though about so many of the mail intended for your house didn't arrive.

 

Does your postman not like you or did the parking crooks not send them. Or did they send them to the wrong address then rectified it by altering the original address to your correct one.

 

Might be an idea to see who asked for your address, when they did and the reason for asking from the DVLA in case they sent different address.

 

Of course even if the DVLA sent the right one, NCP could still have got it wrong. And of course if they never sent it you cannot appeal within the right time and you lose the right to pay the lower amount.

 

[westlondonmum]

@lookinforinfo we are very friendly with our postman.

 

At the time of the first BW letter I even asked him if he'd seen any letters that looked like they came from NCP and he said he didn't recall, but it was a while ago so he couldn't be sure.

 

I doubt they even sent them at all - and have doctored the letter to update the address as it's very strange that the BW letters reached us, but the original PCN and follow ups from NCP didn't...

[lookinforinfo]

That is good news that he hasn't confirmed the driver situation. Fingers crossed.

I was being slightly facetious about the postman but it is odd that letters from two different companies going astray so hard to explain.

 

[FTMDave]

This gets worse and worse - for the fleecers.

 

They were told they were pursuing the wrong person and were given the identity of the right person - so proceeded to sue the wrong person.  Partner in the clear.

 

If they try to lie and say they never received the e-mail or they didn't consider it due to some legal technicality - well, OK, the PCN was sent out too late in any case to establish keeper liability.  Partner in the clear.

[dx100uk]

ive hidden you and written note

 

you need to redact ref and reg number

 

dx

 

[westlondonmum]

@dx100uk ah, noted! Thank you! @FTMDave that's good news indeed. What do I do now? Can this be settled before a court hearing, or will I need to submit a defence?

[FTMDave]

You will certainly need to file a defence.

 

We see absolutely hopeless court claims started by private parking companies all the time.  It only costs them £35 to issue a claim.  They misuse the court system to try to intimidate motorists into paying.  As they continue to do it, presumably sadly it works.  People have visions of judges in long wigs and hundreds of quid in costs and wet themselves and give in. 

 

We have a case at the moment - I kid you not - where a taxi driver stopped in a no-stopping area of an airport because someone had jumped out in front of him, and the only alternative to not stopping would have been to murder the pedestrian.  Really!  I'm not making it up.

 

The fleecers don't care.  Pay £35 for the claim.  Most give in.  Now & then they have to discontinue a case and lose £35.  It doesn't matter because those who give in pay the £35 plus £70 Unicorn Food Tax which finances two more claims, and so the cycle of fleecing continues.

 

I'm afraid you will have to be patient and be in for the long haul.

[westlondonmum]

@FTMDave but presumably actually going to court for a case will cost them more??

 

Are there any template defences I can amend for my case? 

[dx100uk]

you file our generic defence, no amendments

its further down in the sticky thread you used for post 1 whereby you filed out our questionnaire

 

post it up here FIRST..

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

And remember, strictly speaking it isn't YOUR defence.

Keep it in mind when answering / completing any paperwork.

Keep playing the game and don't let on...

[FTMDave]

45 minutes ago, westlondonmum said:

@FTMDave but presumably actually going to court for a case will cost them more??

Indeed.  Even if they were to beat you - won't happen - they would spend more than the court judgement amount on preparation costs.

 

But it's a numbers game to them.

 

Most people, sadly, aren't like you.  When the PCN turns up, most people think it's a fine and pay up.  The few that resist then wet themselves when the court claim arrives with visions of stern judges in wigs and thousands of pounds in costs and cough up.  There aren't many westlondonmums about.

 

Now & again the PPCs come across a westlondonmum and take a hit.

 

Another disgusting tactic the PPCs sometimes use is to begin a court case, knowing from the start it's hopeless.  They predict that the motorist will give in.  If that doesn't happen, they discontinue the case.  Now I'm not saying that will happen in your case, don't get your hopes up, it's always better to prepare too much than too little, but it's a possibility.

[westlondonmum]

Thank you all! The defence looks fine as it is so here it is: 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of motor vehicle registration number XXX.

 

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

 

3.  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. 

 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

 

6.  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.

[FTMDave]

[MoaningCrusader]

Can I suggest that WestLondonMum submits an SAR to NCP to see if they had indeed posted previous letters to her address or not? Otherwise this all seems to have escalated very quickly. Has it not?

 

The 'grace' period mention further up this thread is also something that should be focused on. As the contract cannot be fair and binding if there has not been reasonable time given to consider the Ts&Cs of the contract. As this is regarding a drop off zone where technically drivers are not permitted to park and leave their vehicles, nor stop approaching DOZs to consider any contract before signing it can't be a fair contract.

 

Please have a look at this twitter feed for a barrister who has been in a similar pickle as us. He has pinned his thread on DOZs contract issues. He did not get a chance to test his argument as the fleecers backed off and dropped all charges. Probably once they realised they were dealing with a legal professional. It's worth a look

 

https://tinyurl.com/y9c4rauh

 

 

[westlondonmum]

Received this letter from BW Legal yesterday - text pasted below:

 

Good morning,

Thank you for completing the required security questions.

 

We note your CPR 31.14 request as per your email dated 12 January 2023 on behalf of the defendant. Be advised that we are not pursuing yourself in this matter but the defendant, TXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXd.

 

CPR 31.14 Response

 

We note that many of the items you have requested under the CPR 31.14 requests are not relevant to this matter as they have not been mentioned in any statement of case. We refer to our full response below.

 

1.       Our Client is engaged by/on behalf of the landowner of the Car Park, and therefore authorised to manage and enforce the terms and conditions displayed in the signage, issue PCNs and enforce them. As the agreement covering this is commercially sensitive we will not be disclosing this document at this stage.

2.       Our Client is not aware of any challenge or enforcement action being taken (or contemplated) by the local authority.  In any event, such an issue would be a matter between Our Client and the local authority, and subject to the procedures set out in the relevant legislation, and therefore not for consideration between the parties and the court in relation to a simple contract claim.

3.       Please find attached a copy of the notices sent by Our Client to the defendant.

 

We note that the defendant has filed a defence with the County Court. We will await a copy of this and respond accordingly once received.

 

If you are in any doubt about the content of this email and/or require guidance/assistance on clearing the balance due to financial difficulties, we would advise you to seek free advice, details of which can be found on the reverse of any of our letters, alternatively you can obtain legal advice from a Solicitor.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Matthew McMahon

Paralegal
bwlegal®

Surely the case would centre around the defendant (my partner) not being liable as he was not the driver at the time of the incident? 

[FTMDave]

That's just a standard response.  Par for the course.  CPR is just a request, they're not obliged to answer.  They will have to produce this documentation later down the line though in their Witness Statement.

 

27 minutes ago, westlondonmum said:

Surely the case would centre around the defendant (my partner) not being liable as he was not the driver at the time of the incident? 

Indeed, that will be one of your aces in your own Witness Statement.

 

BTW, all this "on behalf of" stuff needs to stop.  The fleecers would have been quite entitled to refuse to answer as the wrong person contacted them.  Your partner is the one being sued.  If the wrong person fills in court papers then they will be rejected and he will lose the case by default.

 

Obviously there's nothing stopping you helping your partner with court paperwork.

 

About the best thing you can do is read this thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/#comments  You'll see someone go through all the stages of the court process and you'll see what will happen next.

 

 

[dx100uk]

you should already have known this letter was coming and how to react or not by READING the numerous NCP/BW claimform threads already here .

 

simply because you have jumped through ONE hoop, doesn't mean you stop or don't do SELF HELP upon whats to come, how to react and what's next.

 

CAG is predominately a self help site, sometime our limited staff don't have the voluntary free time to spare on telling you things you should have already researched yourself. 

 

so your next question to answer is:

when do i stop worrying if they are going to court?

the court acknowledged your defence in a letter..what did it say - read it..., and what have you researched MIGHT be your next thing to lookout for?

 

dx

 

[westlondonmum]

@dx100uk 

BW have filed a defence.

 

However, is it really necessary to take this all the way to a hearing?

 

With NCP in clear contravention of multiple sections of POFA 2012 could I not email BW legal laying out the key defences of (1) Wrong person being sued

(2) Notice to keeper sent too late.

 

Would they not drop the case as there is clear contravention of the overarching legislation namely POFA? 

[dx100uk]

a claimant does not file a defence you did - as the defendant.

but that was months ago. the claim is obviously well stayed now?

 

not sure what you are going on about above?

 

.

[westlondonmum]

Nope. BW filed a response to my partner’s defence and I received confirmation from the court that BW are proceeding to a trial. 

[FTMDave]

On 16/01/2023 at 00:51, FTMDave said:

We see absolutely hopeless court claims started by private parking companies all the time.  It only costs them £35 to issue a claim.  They misuse the court system to try to intimidate motorists into paying.  As they continue to do it, presumably sadly it works.  People have visions of judges in long wigs and hundreds of quid in costs and wet themselves and give in. 

 

We have a case at the moment - I kid you not - where a taxi driver stopped in a no-stopping area of an airport because someone had jumped out in front of him, and the only alternative to not stopping would have been to murder the pedestrian.  Really!  I'm not making it up.

 

The fleecers don't care.  Pay £35 for the claim.  Most give in.  Now & then they have to discontinue a case and lose £35.  It doesn't matter because those who give in pay the £35 plus £70 Unicorn Food Tax which finances two more claims, and so the cycle of fleecing continues.

 

I'm afraid you will have to be patient and be in for the long haul.