NCP Spanked in Court - Towing for Unpaid Tickets

bargepole

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

I wonder if they got their lawyers from Solihull legal school as other esteemed people in the parking industry?

No, they used Narinder Jhittay of Maitland Chambers, Lincoln's Inn.

Apparently the £2,800 awarded to the claimant was in addition to his costs, which were mainly for his barrister's fees for the best part of 3 days.

NCP would also have to have paid Ms Jhittay's fees, so the total cost to NCP would have been well into five figures.

But the real cost to NCP, and possibly the rest of the so-called "industry" may well turn out to be much higher than that. Wheels are turning behind the scenes.

jkdd77

trisontana wrote: »

They were very close to breaking criminal law by seizing the vehicle. It could have been theft or TWOC or even blackmail, but the boys in blue just weren't interested.

There is no "very close" about it. It was indisputably criminal.

The Statute of Marlborough 1267 (the relevant sections of which are still in force):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen3cc1415/52/1/section/I
makes it a criminal offence to seize property over alleged unproven debts.

Statute_of_Marlborough wrote:

It is Provided, agreed, and granted, that all Persons, as well of high as of low Estate, shall receive Justice in the King’s Court; and none from henceforth shall take any such Revenge or Distress of his own Authority, without Award of our Court, though he have Damage or Injury, whereby he would have amends of his Neighbour either higher or lower.

And upon the foresaid Article It is Provided and granted, that if any from henceforth take such Revenges of his own Authority, without Award of the King’s Court as before is said, and be convict thereof, he shall be punished by Fine, and that according to the Trespass; and likewise if one Neighbour take a Distress of another without Award of the King’s Court, whereby he hath Damage, he shall be punished in the same wise, and that after the Quantity of the Trespass; and nevertheless sufficient and full Amends shall be made to them that have sustained Loss by such Distresses.

Gryphon005

Fantastic result :j. I've just read the whole thread on PePiPoo - all 423 posts at present - and found it rivetting reading. Congrats to James, the claimant, for his tenacity in hanging in there where many (most probably including myself) might have folded along the way.

Although this was a civil, not a criminal case.........

Other PPCs have had their DVLA data access suspended for 3 months for seemingly far less serious matters. One wonders how the people at Swansea will view this case.

Also, I wonder if the appropriate newly elected Police Commissioner might be persuaded to ask a few awkward questions of his Chief Constable as to why this matter was ignored by his force when the law had so obviously been flouted?

BASFORDLAD

bargepole wrote: »

No, they used Narinder Jhittay of Maitland Chambers, Lincoln's Inn.

Apparently the £2,800 awarded to the claimant was in addition to his costs, which were mainly for his barrister's fees for the best part of 3 days.

NCP would also have to have paid Ms Jhittay's fees, so the total cost to NCP would have been well into five figures.

But the real cost to NCP, and possibly the rest of the so-called "industry" may well turn out to be much higher than that. Wheels are turning behind the scenes.

Well at least they used a proper firm and have to pay proper costs

maypole

Great result!:T

Sirdan

jkdd77 wrote: »

There is no "very close" about it. It was indisputably criminal.

The Statute of Marlborough 1267 (the relevant sections of which are still in force):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen3cc1415/52/1/section/I
makes it a criminal offence to seize property over alleged unproven debts.

I remain to be convinced of the relevance , the language of such old statutes often makes them tricky to interpret. Reading it literally this statute appears to negate the remedy of distress damage feasant which we know can apply in some circumstances , although clearly not in this NCP spankathon !

trisontana

What's different in the NCP case to the scenario where I go next door and take my neighbour's law-mower because he won't pay back the £50 I lent him? In my case I would be breaking the law, and that's no different to the actions of NCP.

jkdd77

Sirdan wrote: »

I remain to be convinced of the relevance , the language of such old statutes often makes them tricky to interpret. Reading it literally this statute appears to negate the remedy of distress damage feasant which we know can apply in some circumstances , although clearly not in this NCP spankathon !

Chapter 2 of the Statute (since repealed) dealt specifically with distresses.

Legal websites such as this one: http://www.davros.org/legal/oddities.html
confirm that Chapter 1 (the one I linked to) cannot recover damages (i.e. including alleged debts) except by order of the court.

If it was legal to seize property over alleged debts, what would be to stop anyone falsely claiming that you owed them money, and then seizing your car and holding to ransom for payment of the non-existent "debt"? This is effectively what NCP did in this case.

To be pedantic, I don't believe that distress damage feasant could apply to the seizure of motor vehicles after 1 October, since at most it could amount to lawful 'excuse' rather than the required 'lawful authority' (which would need to come from statute), and in any case any fee demanded for release could only reflect actual losses rather than an arbitrary ransom. However, it could still theoretically apply to other trespassing chattels.

bargepole

The Statute of Marlborough was indeed used as part of the claimant's skeleton submission to the Court.

I don't know how the Judge ruled on this point; we'll have to wait until the full Judgment is published.

tom9980

Hopefully James Mayhook continues to take this further where possible, its a brill result and another one for my facebook page to spread the word