Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 10th Dec 16, 5:42 PM
    • 390Posts
    • 96Thanks
    manutd99
    NWCP Car Parks - Claim Form
    • #1
    • 10th Dec 16, 5:42 PM
    NWCP Car Parks - Claim Form 10th Dec 16 at 5:42 PM
    I received a Windscreen ticket from NWCP car parks on 23rd Oct. I chose to ignore it at the time as thought nothing of it. Today I received a Notice to Keeper (dated 9th Dec). I believe you appeal on day 26 after receiving the windscreen PCN. I have read the letter and there is no mention of a windscreen ticket (dont think so anyway)

    In the appeals section it says "In the event that you wish to dispute liability for this parking charge, within 21 days (beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given.

    How do I proceed as you have to appeal within 28 days of the PCN ticket but as there is no mention of the ticket on the notice to keeper I presume I can still appeal as it says within 21 of this notice. Also mentions 28 days further down the paragraph.

    Do I just go ahead and send the letter in the NEWBIES thread?
    Last edited by manutd99; 08-04-2017 at 12:02 AM.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Apr 17, 8:23 PM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So the Swedish individual has a charge over the site, like a bank or mortgage company would. I don't think that's especially helpful.

    More useful to see would be this - you could scan it and show it to us (just break the URL) if it isn't marked as private or the email didn't restrict you as to how you use it:

    They have provided me with the contract between the parking company and the owners authorising them to manage the parking on this land. The title also has a plan which highlights the land in red
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 7th Apr 17, 9:25 PM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    NWCP Car Parks - Claim Form
    So the Swedish individual has a charge over the site, like a bank or mortgage company would. I don't think that's especially helpful.

    More useful to see would be this - you could scan it and show it to us (just break the URL) if it isn't marked as private or the email didn't restrict you as to how you use it:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Here is the contract.

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/jck7aktkwpyh46r/Parking%20Enforcement%20Contract.pdf?dl=0
    Last edited by manutd99; 07-04-2017 at 11:59 PM.
    • DollyDee
    • By DollyDee 8th Apr 17, 8:50 AM
    • 740 Posts
    • 840 Thanks
    DollyDee
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/jck7aktkwpyh46r/Parking%20Enforcement%20Contract.pdf?dl=0
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 17, 4:51 PM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So the client gets 20% of all paid PCNs back but must pay a tenner to cancel any.

    And I didn't see the 'Schedule 1' there that it refers to?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 10th Apr 17, 12:36 AM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    So the client gets 20% of all paid PCNs back but must pay a tenner to cancel any.

    And I didn't see the 'Schedule 1' there that it refers to?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Seems so

    Schedule 1 is the address it refers to on page one. There doesn't seem to be a plan of the area of the land in the contract. The land registry does have have the plan with the same address.

    Anything I can go by at the moment? Do I have a case?
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Apr 17, 10:06 AM
    • 7,293 Posts
    • 7,444 Thanks
    pappa golf
    where does N+V properties cpme in to this ?

    PS: guess who owns N+V https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC393439/officers
    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 10th Apr 17, 1:42 PM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    where does N+V properties cpme in to this ?

    PS: guess who owns N+V https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC393439/officers
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    They own the the land as per land registry document (see previous post). I have edited my post and changed the wording from private company to N&V Properties. Even prior to N&V properties it wasn't the council. It was an individual women.

    Yes saw who owner of N&V properties is but doesn't really matter I presume as Land Registry document is in their name.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Apr 17, 1:47 PM
    • 7,293 Posts
    • 7,444 Thanks
    pappa golf
    N+V IS Mr Rigby (and wife)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 17, 10:05 PM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Do I have a case?
    Originally posted by manutd99
    There is ALWAYS a case against private parking tickets; the entire industry is long since rotten.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 17th Apr 17, 1:07 AM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    I have been working on my Defence. I have limited knowledge on parking rules and regulation so therefore majority of my Defence is from other Defences I have read. It is very long. I will post this soon via a dropbox link. Before I post I need help writing the following

    Is the Defendant then liable as keeper under the provisions of POFA?

    How do I figure that out? Please see below my Notice To Driver (NTK). Is this compliant to POFA. Any paragraphs from POFA I can mention my case is not compliant with?



    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lodvcojechp1770/Notice%20To%20Keeper%20Page%201.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/t1036kbuls1xeho/Notice%20To%20Keeper%20Page%202.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr4incv4wryghow/Notice%20To%20Keeper%20Page%203.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/duv7qi8gmbger1j/Notice%20To%20Keeper%20Page%204.jpg?dl=0
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 17, 11:32 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm somewhat *busy* today but had a quick look and couldn't see the 8(2)f wording - the vital warning about liability they would need to include in any NTK, as you can find when you read para 8 of Schedule 4 which is linked in the NEWBIES thread post #1 (where it says about 'if you want to dig deeper').
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 18th Apr 17, 7:43 PM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    I'm somewhat *busy* today but had a quick look and couldn't see the 8(2)f wording - the vital warning about liability they would need to include in any NTK, as you can find when you read para 8 of Schedule 4 which is linked in the NEWBIES thread post #1 (where it says about 'if you want to dig deeper').
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks. If you have time could you have a proper look. Just want to finish it off.

    So I am 100% certain on dates. My claim form date is 24th March. What is the date I need to get my defence in by? Is it 28 days + 5 days? Is that 26th April? So 26th April is the my last day?
    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 19th Apr 17, 12:14 AM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    How does this sound

    Is the Defendant then liable as keeper under the provisions of POFA?

    2. The Defendant admits that a keeper of a vehicle can be held liable for a charge issued to a driver of that vehicle.

    3. Fatally to the Claimant’s case, the document which purports to be a POFA-compliant NtK, dated 9th December 2016 is not compliant because it is not compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 as per below


    3.1 Paragraph 8 (2) (f) states “warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given”. There is no such warning on the NtK.
    3.2 Paragraph 8 (2) (c) says “state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f)”
    The notice to driver was in the form of a windscreen ticket. The NtK must state a windscreen ticket was given. There is no such information on the NtK

    4. It is clear that the Claimant has not complied with these conditions, and there is no legal basis whatsoever to enforce the parking charge against the Defendant as the registered keeper.

    5. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver


    3.2 - Is that correct. I have read on parkingcowboys website that notice to keeper must state

    State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when

    The NtK does not state a windscreen ticket was given so I have included 3.2

    Please let me know what anyone thinks of the above. Seems coupon-mad is the only one replying. No other experts on this forum?
    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 19th Apr 17, 1:36 AM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    N+V IS Mr Rigby (and wife)
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Sorry should have have mentioned this is just one of the my parts of defence. Just want to know if this part looks or not. The whole defense is quite long so il have to put as a dropbox link once finalised

    Does directors sharing common directorship have any bearing or relevance in my case. Pappa Golf also indicated something similar as per quote
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam3; 11-07-2017 at 11:55 AM. Reason: Quoting deleted post
    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 20th Apr 17, 12:28 AM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    Could someone confirm the date please so I'm certain.

    Please see below my Defence added to Dropbox. I have mainly used what I felt relevant from other defences. I am unsure if any points are not relevant to this case. Would really appreciate someone with knowledge to look through and let me know if I should remove anything or not or even add. I do realise it is pretty long. Coupon-Mad - when you have time could you have a look. You can if you want edit the document and then post a link to the modified doc. Your help appreciated.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/83vti8xy7l169m7/Defence%20Summary.docx?dl=0
    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 20th Apr 17, 11:35 PM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    Could someone confirm the date and provide feedback to my defence please. Much appreciated as very close to my defence submission date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Apr 17, 12:37 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    My claim form date is 24th March. What is the date I need to get my defence in by? Is it 28 days + 5 days? Is that 26th April? So 26th April is the my last day?
    Yes but I wouldn't push it to that day, or if you do, make sure the defence is emailed as a PDF to CCBC in the morning.

    I would have:
    2. The Defendant admits is fully aware that a keeper of a vehicle can potentially be held liable for a charge issued to a driver of that vehicle, but only in the event of strict and full compliance with the applicable statute. There is no other lawful way to hold a keeper liable for the actions of a driver on private land.
    3. Fatally to the Claimant’s case, the document which purports to be a POFA-compliant NtK, dated 9th December 2016 is not compliant because it is not compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 as per detailed below
    3.2 - Is that correct. I have read on parkingcowboys website that notice to keeper must state

    State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when

    The NtK does not state a windscreen ticket was given so I have included 3.2
    Yes, correct.

    And from your main defence I would just make it clear that the reason you know about the signs and what they look like is you went to gather evidence (otherwise it implies the keeper might have been the driver after all):

    The Defendant makes the following points, having gathered evidence and considered the signage at this location:
    8.1 The terms offered must be clear and unambiguous. They were not. The signage was cluttered, small and illegible to motorists,
    Although much of point #13 makes a lot of sense, personally I would remove these arguments 13.4 and 13.5 because they don't make sense to me (post-Beavis case) and hand the claimant an advantage as they would be easy to argue against, using Beavis:

    13.4 A penalty is not a genuine representation of loss (as was found in OB Services v Thurlow, ParkingEye Ltd v Collins and Excel v Heatherington-Jakeman). The charge is clearly a penalty and an unfair consumer charge, because it cannot be a pre-estimate of loss and there is no commercial justification for it.
    13.5 The court is referred to the tests set out in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd (1915) and Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia to determine if the sum is a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of damages. In Beavis it was determined that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss because there was no direct loss to the Claimant.
    Apart from that it looked well-argued (is it in the style of LoadsofChildren123's defence, it is familiar?).

    You need a statement of truth and your signature and date at the end.

    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • manutd99
    • By manutd99 21st Apr 17, 1:26 AM
    • 390 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    manutd99
    Yes but I wouldn't push it to that day, or if you do, make sure the defence is emailed as a PDF to CCBC in the morning.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    What is the best method to send? How do people usually send these? Can you attach PDF's/documents on the moneyclaim website or do you email everything separately. What do you recommend doing and when. Just want to know how I proceed now and how to submit my defence.

    I would have:




    Yes, correct.

    And from your main defence I would just make it clear that the reason you know about the signs and what they look like is you went to gather evidence (otherwise it implies the keeper might have been the driver after all):



    Although much of point #13 makes a lot of sense, personally I would remove these arguments 13.4 and 13.5 because they don't make sense to me (post-Beavis case) and hand the claimant an advantage as they would be easy to argue against, using Beavis:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you so much for the pointing out the amendments it is much appreciated. I will make the amendments and thanks for thumbs up that the rest is good. Did spend time on it and wasn't sure if points were relevant to my case or not so wanted re-assurance.

    Apart from that it looked well-argued (is it in the style of LoadsofChildren123's defence, it is familiar?).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes it is similar to Loadsofchildren123 defence. That defence was awesome so had to do something similar.

    You need a statement of truth and your signature and date at the end.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes thanks still need to add.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Apr 17, 1:43 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What is the best method to send? How do people usually send these?
    Email the defence (one PDF, no attachments or evidence at this stage) to:

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    Copy yourself in to ensure its sent ok. Ring the court to confirm receipt.

    Can you attach PDF's/documents on the moneyclaim website
    No and nor does post #2 of the NEWBIES thread tell you to use MCOL again, only for the AOS. Not for the defence.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 21st Apr 17, 7:37 AM
    • 369 Posts
    • 238 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    In mine years back I was done in a "no parking at all, authorised vehicles only" area.

    I argued in my (successful) appeal that there is no actual difference between an authorised and unauthorised vehicle, when it comes to loss!!

    How does an authorised vehicle cause no loss, but an unauthorised one suddenly causes them loss, a parked vehicle either causes a loss or it does not regardless of permission.
    This proves that unathorised vehicles do not cause loss, and the charge is punative and a penalty and does not arise from any loss!!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

273Posts Today

1,378Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin