New generation parking

Hitchedguide

Hi my 1st post just received a parking charge notice from this company for exceeding maximum stay on site doesn't say how long. Provided 4 anpr photos 2 of which are very dark 2 are overhead at a distance. Unable to id occupants. The letter is telling me in the absence of the identity of the the driver as the registered keeper I am liable for paying the fine£100. It later states if I am not the driver at the time in question it is requesting I provide them. Has anyone had recent dealings with this company?

Umkomaas

DO NOT reveal who the driver was. There is more protection for the Registered Keeper (and higher hurdles for the PPC to get over) in dealing with this.

There's an excellent search engine on the forum so put in 'Generation' and you should have some recent cases come up - search window is top r/h side of forum index page.

But really, it matters little about historic events involving NGP as they are no different to any of the other outfits infesting car parks up and down the country. So here's a much better link for you to spend a bit of time reading. Everything should be clearly detailed there for you to take this forward. Come back if there's anything not clear.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

HTH

4consumerrights

http://www.ngpltd.com/faqs

IMO -
New generation are telling a few little porkies on their website for example misleading information about naming drivers and about taking people to court which so far they haven't

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4806028

They may also not have the disclosed the correct information to the ICO as they do not declare the DVLA which should be given under Sources: Disclosures and Recipients Acts

https://www.ngpltd.com/faqs

HO87

4consumerrights wrote: »

http://www.ngpltd.com/faqs

IMO -
New generation are telling a few little porkies on their website for example misleading information about naming drivers and about taking people to court which so far they haven't

I agree. The answers to the first three questions are truthful enough. However the answer to the fourth question contains a Churchillian terminological inexactitude.

The question is:

Q. Is it true that the registered keeper need not give you any information about the driver of the vehicle at the time and date in question?

And their answer is:

No this is not true. This was very true up until the changes in legislation on October 1st 2012 and there lies the problem. That is why parking companies were reluctant to take people to court unless they had Photographic or video evidence clearly displaying the driver of the vehicle at the time and date in question.

The implication of this reply is that, as a result of the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, (POFA) there is some form of compulsion to divulge the driver's details or penalty that may be exacted against the keeper if they fail to divulge these details. This is untrue. There is no form of compulsion whatsoever and all that a creditor may do is to invite the keeper to provide these details. Nor is there a penalty for failing to disclose the details.

There may have been some connection between the fact that PPC's chose not to pursue keepers to court, their being unable to obtain these details and the relatively few court cases under the pre-POFA regime. Then again there may not have been.

Hitchedguide

Sent this off today by post have paid extra to ensure they sign for it. Incidentally went into a store at the location where The alleged breach occurred COSTCO the duty manager was rubbish tried to convince me that I hadn't a leg to stand on and that the land was owned by NGP. Every time I knocked back her argument her only response was write to NGP. So I have.

Coupon-mad

We have a few other NGP threads on page 1 or 2 right now which mention flaws in the Notice to Keeper. So find those threads & read them now and/or compare your NTK letter to the POFA2012 link I give in the info sticky thread 'newbies...read this now!'.

Hitchedguide

You are spot on I have already compared theirs with mine they are exactly the same notices maybe even more relevant as mine is a staying for excessive period. The photos are anpr that show the vehicle apparently arrive and leave but none that show the vehicle actually parked. They certainly do not describe the period the vehicle was actually parked only the time and dated the vehicle left the site.

Stroma

No this is not true. This was very true up until the changes in legislation on October 1st 2012 and there lies the problem. That is why parking companies were reluctant to take people to court unless they had Photographic or video evidence clearly displaying the driver of the vehicle at the time and date in question.

That's interesting then, how do they know who the driver is in the image? Do they possess a database putting a name to everybody's face in the uk ? And if they don't how will they compel someone to confirm that is them? Just more garbage from scammers

Hitchedguide

I have since returned to the site and photographed their sign which I could not read instead I had to use the zoom function on the iPad. I noted that they refer to entering a contract with the VEHICLE KEEPER yet the NTK is to the registered keeper. According to DVLA these are different persons. Is this evidence that the sign is wrong or the NTK is wrong?

Coupon-mad

I would say the sign is wrong because in fact they enter into an initial alleged contract ONLY with the driver and then they have certain rights to chase the keeper later on, but only if critieria under POFA 2012 are met...

...which they have failed on haven't they, due to the flawed NTK = no rk liability!

Hitchedguide

The plot thickens suddenly it seems I have so much to throw back at them come the POLPA appeal. Thanks for some great advice and guidance so far.Furthermore the sign states it may obtain vehicle keepers names and addresses from DVLA. Yet DVLA say they will only provide registered Keeper details.