Ncp refused appeal

dollypeeps

coupon mad i will look to add something along those lines tomorrow when i can look back through the info on the "help threads and templates"

karen

dollypeeps

i really appreciate everyones input/help and guidance

karen

dollypeeps

To Dollypeeps, does the NTK mention the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on front or back, anywhere or not? Also does it actually use the words 'Keeper liability' or not?[/QUOTE

Coupon mad, no it doesn't say the above. I've only got a copy of the front of the notice. Dh sent the original off.:mad: I'm not the registered keeper dh is, I was using the car that day.

prowla

dollypeeps wrote: »

I parked in ncp 7//12/13 and paid relevant ticket charges by cash. Obtained ticket from machine and placed on dashboard. Upon return I found a pcn attached to my windscreen ( strangely enough over the ticket on the dashboard) stating that I have not clearly paid and displayed a valid ticket.

I have appealed in writing to ncp and they have refused my appeal on the above grounds. I gave them a copy of the ticket to which they replied " you have provided me with a transaction receipt and I cannot accept this as a valid pay and display ticket". This was the only ticket I obtained from the machine.

They have given me a popla number if I wish to take it further.

I have read stickies and templates and am now rather confused.

Maybe I've read too much tonight.

Please could someone post me a link of the right template please.

Karen x

Well, you didn't really expect them to let you off for this heinous transgression against all that is fair and good in this great land of ours, did you?

And the fact that you have a proof of purchase is clearly not a valid way of showing that you paid the required fee, is it?

Their job in life is to separate you from as much of your money as possible; they're no better than the scammers in London using the three shells and a pea trick to con tourists out of their money.

Hope you get it sorted!

dollypeeps

I have to add a paragraph about the signage which I'm looking at today hopefully post it later

dollypeeps

Ok here goes deleted paragraphs as per above posters and added another re signage

2nd draft .....

I amappealing against the PCN no XXxxxxxxxxon the following grounds –



1 That your claim is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

The car parking fee for 24 hours was £7.30 on 7thDecember 2013 and this was paid for in full at 8.19am. On the date of theclaimed loss, the car park was not at 100% capacity and there was no physicaldamage caused. There cannot have beenany loss from this incident. Neither canNPC lawfully include their operational day to day running costs in any “loss”claimed. I contend there can be no loss whatsoever; nopre-estimate (prior to starting to charge for breaches at this site) has beenprepared or considered in advance.







2CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE ANDNO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

NCP do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for theowner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, NCP havenot provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand moneyfrom a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest orassignment of title of the land in question.

I would also request that POPLA to please check whether NCP have provided a full copy of the actualcontemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (notjust a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) andcheck that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges intheir own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is notcompliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enterinto a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeedthe legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator tothe recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS)v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was todetermine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that:"If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services,they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they willnot be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore,that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parkingcharges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for thesupply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operatorasserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator wouldhave to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point ofsupply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellantasserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore beconcluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, forwhich the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, asset out above.



3 NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER

There is no contract between NCP and the driver, but even if there was a contractthen it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meetingof minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

4 NOT GIVEN THE THE CORRECT TIME TO APPEAL

Theverification code xxxxxxxxxx was generated by NCP on Tuesday 31stDecember 2013. The appeal rejection letter from NCP was dated Thursday 2ndJanuary 2014 and received on Saturday 4th January 2014. Therefore Iinform you that I have not been given the full 28 days to appeal, to which I amentitled under the BPA code of practice.



5 Unclear, Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage

Due totheir high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of thesmall print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read andunderstand.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms NCP arerelying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the operatorsevidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs with theBPA Code of Practice requirements. I contendthat the signs on this land (wording, position,clarity) do not comply and failto properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences forbreach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts and WalthamForest v Vine (CCRTF 98/1290/B2)





Given theabove points, I request that PCN number XXxxxxxxxx is rescinded and thatletters of confirmation are sent to NCP and to the above address as verificationthat this case has been over ruled.



Yourssincerely

Redx

best bet is copy and paste from word into notepad to stop formatting issues

then copy and paste from notepad into here

I would also suggest that you add bullet points to the start of the appeal, with each section header named as the bullet point, to make it easier for the assessor to find what they need

like in this example here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

so 1) to 5) listed as bullet points above the main expanded paragraphs

dollypeeps

Thanks redx. I know I need to address the typos, formatting etc but is the overall content ok. That was done in word late last night ( my 1st copy disappeared on the iPad) so please excuse my errors.
Karen
,

dollypeeps

Is the overall content of my second draft ok ? Or are there any other points I need to add?

Thanks a lot

Karen

Coupon-mad

I would say 'no contract with driver' is the same sort of point as 'unclear signage' so amalgamate them. The more important part of the two, is 'no contract with driver' so stress that fact in the signage paragraph.


And you need to make each point title look the same (font, capitals, bold) so it looks less messy.


And remove this line as it's from an old template that was unclear:


nopre-estimate (prior to starting to charge for breaches at this site) has beenprepared or considered in advance.