Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • for lowells then.  i could instruct my dog to sit, if it does is a totally different matter.. whats the debt and when did you take it out? and when did you last pay it? you know the game from the info we asked you in your current claimform thread. bottom line  ignore them. nothing they can do. thats just a std threat-o-gram sent automatically by email which is a freeway to try and scare you. the debt is >£600 so in all truth they could even use HCEO's but eitherway and even for a charging order, they STILL have to return to court to ASK the court to allow bailiff use or apply for a charging order, and if any of those were to be attempted, the court would write telling you giving you the opportunity to object.  might be the best option as when its back in court you could then demand they show you the signed credit agreement   ps you wont its nothing to do with them now. the claim was adjudged. dx
    • The payment plan was made officially through the court who accepted it. It has always been maintained apart from as explained.
    • Sorry was typing on the hop.  The contact number that Shiply provided me for AirSpeeder when they also took my items ( I have my own thread about it on here ) is showing on Whatsapp as being a company called Agench Ltd.  I have found other contact numbers for that person under the Agench Ltd company name so have sent them messages also x
    • so Lowell is the current debt owner? Was the payment plan made through the courts or informally with them?
    • Hi gigantictortoise369 (excellent name, I might add) Welcome to CAG. This is a well-known scam site to us. It's even been on the TV with Joe Lycett claiming how much of a scam it is! DO NOT APPEAL!  Not only is their NTK well out of date for any keeper liability but it doesn't mention POFA at all. This means that only the driver is liable. Simply don't say who the driver is to anyone; you'll have protection as keeper then. Get reading up on here, standard procedure is to contact Starbucks and Euro Garages to get the charge removed. Ignore the deforestation MET sends you *until/unless* you get a Letter of Claim. Then come back here. MET have tried court here a couple of times, but they've either been struck out by the courts or MET has discontinued the claim. Only once has there been a CCJ awarded and that's because the OP ignored court papers and got a court judgement before coming here. Get reading up on other threads, type the address in and you'll see loads of threads about this site. You'll find information about contacting Euro Garages etc to start your method of attack.
  • 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

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 200 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

Hello, I haven't posted in this forum before so am following the instructions in the COURT CLAIMS sticky note. Any help as to my defence would be very much appreciated!

Questions answered below:

  • Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton

Name of the Claimant ? National Car Parks (EUK) Limited 

Date of issue –  20 December 2022

Date of AOS = 07.01.23

date to submit defence = by 4pm on 20.01.23 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

Particulars of Claim:

1.The Claimant's (C) Claim is for the sum of £111 in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) payable by the Defendant (D) to C.

2.On 29/05/2021, the driver of a vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, breached C's terms and conditions of parking at Gatwick Airport North Terminal Drop Off RH60NP, which is managed and operated by C.

3. The PCN was issued for: No Payment. the terms and conditions were displayed on signage in situ and, D, as the driver and/or the registered keeper of the vehicle is liable to pay the PCN.

4.The claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 being an amount of £11 (calculated at a rate of 8% p.a. at a daily rate of £0.02 from 29/05/2021 to 19/12/2022). C also claims £60 debt recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and in C's ATA AoS Code of Practice. 

 

MY STORY

I was dropping off my partner at Gatwick Airport that afternoon with our new daughter who was 10 months at the time.

I logged online to make the payment and got through to the payment page, however my daughter began crying so I was distracted and didn't check to see whether the payment actually went through.

I thought nothing of it until after the second COVID lockdown (where we were unable to travel back to the UK from Switzerland for 3 months).

When on our return we received a letter from BW Legal regarding a debt owed for a PCN issued.

I checked back through all our mail and confirmed we had received nothing from NCP regarding any alleged contravention. 

I had to email BW Legal to send me the documentation

I've noted this is a similar situation to another post on this forum: 

I tried to contact NCP to appeal this PCN, however they said that since the case had already been passed to BW legal their hands were tied. I then tried to appeal to POPLA, however I needed a reference number from NCP, who wouldn't provide me with one. 

When I received the letter of claim from BW Legal I emailed requesting that they drop the case, but I obviously was too polite as on 20 December I received a Claims form from the County Court

Gatwick Airport PCN_red_compressed.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NCP/BW ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Gatwick Airport dropoff

Yes I've already acknowledged service of the claim so I believe I have until 20 Jan to file a defence?  Ideally I'd like the claim dropped before then...but after the experience with BW and NCP this is looking more and more unlikely!

 

@dx100uk will do the CPR request.

 

Considering one or all of:

- writing to MP

- alerting the media 

- complaining to Gatwick Airport owners (last time I checked it was another airport owning Gatwick - VINCI airports - should I be emailing them?)

- complaining again to NCP and threatening to counterclaim (I recall seeing something posted re this on another thread)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NCP/BW ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - appealed refused- Gatwick Airport dropoff zone

@lookinforinfoyes, i quickly realised I'd really shot myself in the foot about 5 minutes after I decided to have a look online...

 

12 November 2021 was the first letter we received. This was a letter from BW Legal which unfortunately I have been unable to locate the hard copy. 

 

I didn't leave the UK until 19th June, however no mail arrived until then from NCP, and on receiving the letter from BW Legal, I double-checked through all the letters we received and confirmed that received neither the Notice to Keeper, nor the Final Reminder or the original PCN had been delivered while we were gone. We returned in August, and obviously if we had seen the PCN then it wouldn't have slipped my mind! Interestingly, BW did not actually attach the original PCN to their pack of evidence - only NTK and Final Reminder....

 

Yes that's right. Yes, my partner left earlier than me. I drove through France on 19th June to meet him there with my daughter and dog in the back, and 5 months pregnant with my son!

 

My partner did reply to BW Legal's request, however he mailed a hard copy of the letter as it was hand written. I'll ask him if he has a copy scanned. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

@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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

UPDATE: ****CLAIM DISMISSED******* 

I sent BW Legal the following letter, after which they immediately issued a letter dismissing the claim!! 

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Re: National Car Parks (EUK) Limited v TXXXX

Claim No: XXXXXX

 

I am writing in regards to your continued harassment of my client, TXXXX and request that your client, NCP Car Parks (EUK) Limited drop the case against the defendant, TXXXX, on the basis that this case is without merit as the procedural rules of the Protection of Freedoms Act (were not complied with). Specifically, the notice to keeper from your client was sent outside of the relevant period under Section 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedom Act (2012). In the Parking Charge Notice to Keeper on which your client is seeking to rely in order to claim damages, the date of the alleged incident is noted as 29/05/2021, and the date of the notice is 15/06/2021. This is 17 days instead of the prescribed 14 day maximum of the relevant period set out in the legislation. 

 

Following this letter, if the case is not dropped immediately, and my client informed, then I will be bringing a separate case against your client for damages for harassment and predatory conduct, as well as seeking recompense for continuing with a case that clearly has no merit. 

 

Furthermore, if this case is not dropped and your client instead chooses to still take it to a formal hearing, then I will be seeking to counterclaim costs in attending the hearing. Namely, return travel from London to the court, accomodation costs, plus costs for childcare outside of normal school hours for my client’s children. This will be in the amount of £500 or more, which is far more than the amount of the original claim. 

 

Please confirm receipt of this letter. 

 

Yours faithfully

 

NXXXX 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...