NCP/BW ANPR PCN - Cambridge North Station

[Nicky Boy]

Already done it

[Nicky Boy]

11 minutes ago, EssexChap said:

We are not allowed to use the provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) & Keeper Liability as Railway Land is exempt from this.

This is the biggie!

If they cannot use POFA, they can ONLY pursue the driver.

So, as long as no-one engages with the fleecers, they will never know who that is...

Can you post a link to this info?

Just click on SAR read and follow the instructions...

[Nicky Boy]

Probably wrong choice of wording on my part.

Just don't admit (even accidentally) who was driving...

This is why we don't recommend appealing.

[Nicky Boy]

Hi guys,

been thinking about this one and wondering...

I know we don't recommend appeals normally, but given a previous reply from the fleecers on the other thread, which said they don't use POFA at this site (effectively letting the RK off the hook).

Perhaps a carefully worded appeal to try and elicit a similar response from NCP could put the OP in a good position further down the line...

Thoughts?

[Nicky Boy]

More or less standard wording when they're trying it on...

[Nicky Boy]

And note the wording... "our request". There is no obligation at all to name the driver...

[Nicky Boy]

Yes,

You need the SAR to get hold of all their paperwork.

You also need to get out of your head that PPC's are "reasonable" bona fide businesses.

They are just money grabbers who will hound you to the ends of the earth.

Think about your own situation... They already KNOW that they can't win in court. Just as they KNOW with all the thousands of other tickets they issue... You found the evidence of that on an old thread.

They just want to bully you into paying up!

[Nicky Boy]

Hoping they don't comply Dave?

[Nicky Boy]

32 minutes ago, EssexChap said:

Do you not recommend we use this? ICO template

If you go through their process of sending a SAR, you'll see that they recommend being "specific" about what you want.

That's dangerous. It gives them wiggle room not to send stuff.

Best way is to ask for everything they have...

Remember this...

20 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

You also need to get out of your head that PPC's are "reasonable" bona fide businesses.

[Nicky Boy]

Correct!

[Nicky Boy]

No,

what you get with POP stands up in law...

You just need to prove you sent it.

And, believe it or not, it has been known for recipients to refuse delivery of recorded.

PPC's are NOT bona fide businesses....

[Nicky Boy]

The fleecers challenged it...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

So there's now a "call for evidence"...

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence

 

[Nicky Boy]

This is a BIG problem for consumers...

Just take a look at the number of posts in all of our Motoring sub forums and see which has the most

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/210-motoring-subforums/

 

I hope you've had a look around the forum to get a good idea of the shady world of PPC's.

Have a little peek at our "success" threads. We have an 85% success rate helping victims through the court process.

The fails can be put down to users not engaging with the forum properly through the process and messing up, and the occasional wayward judge.

(Don't worry, many, many times the fleecers back off before court.)

Successes...

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347084-ppc-successes-no-questions-please/page/16/#comment-5226449

 

[Nicky Boy]

I think Dave will be jumping up and down with excitement, he loves these.

He'll probably be along shortly...

[Nicky Boy]

You've already asked nicely once and they'e ignored you.

 

The only way to really put the pressure on, is to send a letter of claim... and that is exactly what you've suggested above.

Only thing is if they ignore you again and you don't follow through with a claim, they'll just think you're a pussy and will roll over in court.

[Nicky Boy]

The process is:

ask nicely (you've already done that).

Lletter before claim giving them 14 days to comply.

Then if they don't comply, on day 15 click off the claim on mcol.

It's a slamdunk win in court, because they  have an obligation to comply with statute.

If they haven't complied, they literally have no defence.

As Dave already said, they can just pay up or...

"but we've seen with other companies that they go running to solicitors, of course bottom barrel solicitors who work with private parking companies 'cos they can't get other work, who then file ridiculous defences just to drag things out so they can mess the motorist about and make money out of their thicko clients.  So that is a possibility too."

[Nicky Boy]

I don't know why you think a SAR will help with that?

They will have NO record of who was driving.

Have you been reading other threads to educate yourself at all?

 

2 hours ago, EssexChap said:

Is the Letter of Claim the same as Letter Before Claim?

Yes.

 

Here's a useful list of some of the acronyms we use

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/147286-posting-in-this-forum-and-a-z-of-motoring-terms/#comment-4399743

 

[Nicky Boy]

1 hour ago, EssexChap said:

Suing for providing the SAR data doesn't help us find out whether they've come after us illegally under the station bylaws etc does it? Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Byelaws are exactly what they say.

The main point is that POFA2012 cannot be used because an area covered under byelaws is not "relevant land" as described in POFA.

Therefore, liability cannot be transferred from the driver (who they cannot identify), to the Keeper, under the terms of POFA.

Start reading up around the forum!

1 hour ago, EssexChap said:

I thought the SAR was to get the data that proved they were acting outside the railway bylaw rules? Otherwise why are we doing it?

I've had a look back up the thread... The SAR is to obtain all the paperwork that's been binned at your end.

As well as reading other threads, it would be a good idea to keep up with your own as well

[Nicky Boy]

Apologies, "Snippy" was not the intention.

And I'm NOT an "expert", just the teaboy

[Nicky Boy]

You're a quick learner Essex!

[Nicky Boy]

14 minutes ago, EssexChap said:

So what's next?

Have you been bluffing?... nothing... (That would give them a good indication of the sort of opponent you are).

Or are you ready to issue a claim?... do it... (That would also give them a good indication of the sort of opponent you are).

Your choice...

[Nicky Boy]

Essex,

After everything to date on this thread and (hopefully) reading other threads, you still don't seem to have quite clicked to the sort of people you're dealing with here.

On 06/11/2023 at 23:08, FTMDave said:

You have the unpalatable choice between:

1.  doing nothing, and potentially later on having to prepare for a court claim with some of the vital evidence missing, or;

2.  going through with the threat to sue them.

 

On 07/11/2023 at 10:04, EssexChap said:

Or giving them a bit more time to provide the SAR stuff, which is my current inclination.

Which surely, is essentially Dave's number 1 choice?

[Nicky Boy]

Ah, ok...

Give 'em another week then.

[Nicky Boy]

What matter is put on hold?

What matter are they querying?

This is a bit like watching paint dry now...

Any chance of seeing the letter?

[Nicky Boy]

Yes! They are more likely to respond to the SAR if you start a claim. It's happened before. 

However, it's too late to stop the claim then and the claim is still valid.  They have already failed in their statutory duty, it's a slamdunk case, so the claim goes on. Your claim fee is not wasted.

Sorry if we seem too aggressive in our actions. It's the way this forum works.

If you want to pussyfoot around and follow the PPC's own random made up rules, making appeals, following their deadlines, etc, you would possibly be better on another forum who deal with these things in a less confrontational manner.

CAG deal with and support a myriad of consumer victims, some of whom are being fleeced by various "companies", to the tune of thousands of pounds.

We also approach these cases aggressively, because it's needed.

Ps. You're right they won't be shaking in their boots... because they're too stupid to understand what you're doing, or they think you're bluffing.