Napier Parking - still ignore?

Clueless2012

I'm so sorry if this has been asked elsewhere but I've been dutifully ignoring all correspondence from Napier Parking since my FCN in September (apart from an initial appeal when I panicked!). I've just received a letter stating that if I fail to settle the debt owed they will (not may) issue County Court proceedings against me. This has worried me as all the other template letters I've read sound a bit more wishy washy. Is it still best to ignore, bearing in mind Napier own the carpark unlike most other PPCs?

Many thanks for any help/reassurance!

spacey2012

Q> Why have they not just done it ?
A= Because they are full of ****

Stroma

Ignore them, if you receive stamped court papers then come back here. They have a problem though as they will not know who to issue to, and they know it! This will not go to court

ManxRed

They open themselves up slightly by putting 'will' and then not actually doing anything - you could complain to the SRA (if this is coming from a 'solicitor' - or someone pretending to be a solicitor).

What WON'T happen is them taking court action. They'd lose and they know it full well.

As spacey2012 says, if they had a case they'd have done it by now, not sent endless letters to you.

Clueless2012

Thank you so much for the responses. I just wondered if these guys were the exception rather than the norm as they own the land and can set their own rules!

Coupon-mad

Hmmmmm...is his thread real I wonder, how do you know they own the land then? Why do you say with such apparent glee that they can set their own rules'? Or is it missing an 'ironic' smiley?

Napier are not exceptional although I am sure their employees are pretty 'special' but they do sometimes try Court and they pull the wool over a judge's eyes on the odd occasion too. Hope this thread isn't being set up for that in the end. Yawn...

Here's a funny one though, a case on pepipoo which was won by the PPC in the end (Napier) although we don't know how rubbish the defence submission may have been - and it was prior to VCS -v- HMRC and VCS -v- Ibootson (Google them please if anyone readiong this doesn't know about those cases). Anyway here's the thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60758&st=20

And if you read the decision, daft Napier made enough effort to try Court and even to win (somehow) but the OP got the last laugh by claiming £90 expenses for a postponed hearing, which got the amount down he had to pay, to just over the original fake PCN amount!

Clueless2012

Yes this is a real thread. Sorry for the impression of glee or if you think this is some kind of set-up - I can assure you I am genuinely worried about this latest letter and just wanted to know if I'm doing the right thing. I am new to online forums and don't know about appropriate use of smilies!

In answer to your question, I googled Napier Parking and found another forum where it was mentioned that Napier own or lease many of their carparks so I wondered if this made a difference to their 'right' to claim the FCN money from me. Apologies if this is incorrect information.

I can see why so many people just pay up - the thought of going to court is very scary. However, I am sticking to my guns at the moment as I feel that Napier were unfair in issuing the FCN and I don't believe they paid any attention whatsoever to my appeal - it was just a standard reply. I just hope that I am not one of the few who end up in front of the judge as public speaking is not my forte!

27col

Well, there's a surprise. A PPC not paying any attention to an appeal. The surprise would have been if they had paid any attention to the appeal.

ManxRed

So, the legalities are this (assuming they own or lease the car park):

1. They DO have a right to offer parking, and - provided the signage is clear, very visible, and does not contravene anything in civil law or Consumer Protection from Unfair Contract Terms legislation - could form a contract. A judge would look at what was written on the signs, and assess whether a reasonable person would have seen the signs and accepted the terms - i.e. were the terms reasonable?

2. Contract law states that the remedy for breach is limited to liquidated damages - actual damages, not consequential, nor punitive penalties. The test for this is that the breached party must be returned to the state it was in prior to the breach. If I have £100 and you breach my contract and it results in me having to fork out money to put things right and I end up with £80 then my liquidated damages are £20.

This second point is the one on which most PPCs fail - especially if the car park in question is free, in which case they cannot even add on DVLA costs, because in theory they shouldn't have been pursuing anyone for losses in the first place, if none ever existed.

Normally PPCs fall on both points. If Napier own or lease the car park then they only fail on 2.

There is a small risk of them taking legal action and another small risk that the judge may come down in their favour (it can be a bit hit and miss), but I would have thought the odds are clearly still very much with you here.

Clueless2012

Thank you. Just one more question - do you think the judgement in the case Napier won against Mr Yau in Milton Keynes last year (which they sent the transcript of in a previous letter) was very unusual then? It appears Napier managed to justify their loss of £80, which is what worries me. Everywhere else I've looked (this forum and others), people seem to be adamant that there's no way PPCs can justify such large amounts as actual losses and not penalties...

Stroma

Well without seeing the judgement and what was used for the defence (if there was one?) how are we supposed to know ?