NTK from an IPC company - help required please

DollyDee_2

Quote from Hoohoo post:

"I would be prepared to use alternative debt resolution to attempt to settle the matter, and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman as a suitable body. For the avoidance of doubt I will not consider the IAS who have widely been exposed as a kangaroo court and have zero credibility. I refer you to the numerous cases which easily can be found on the internet."

Should that be Alternative Dispute Resolution?

gmthesecond69

Thanks Coupon-Mad. I understand the contractual aspect now.

If you have time, any thoughts on my plan outlined in my post at 09:00.. all look ok?

Beyond that, I hopefully won't need to bother you all for a while!

hoohoo

DollyDee wrote: »

Quote from Hoohoo post:
Should that be Alternative Dispute Resolution?

Yes

Bizarre as it sounds, although it should be the strongest argument of all, is there any danger in including the information that a valid permit was displayed? Might it be taken as an indication the Keeper was driving and undermine the NTK defence?

This is your strongest argument so go with it.

Should you wait 28 days?

I would not bother. Your main argument is that a permit was displayed and that the car was there with landowner permission anyway.

ParkingEye just lost a similar case, where they tried to charge a workman who was invited on the premesis by the landowner. The judge described the case as vexatious.

The exact wording is that their officer 'had reason to believe that the following breach of terms and conditions displayed had occurred and that a contractual payment charge is now payable'.

This is the great fraud perpetrated by the IPC on their members. A contractual charge for breach is just a different way of saying genuine pre-estimate of loss. Since ParkingEye v Beavis, they now either have to show this is their loss (impossible) or show the charge is justified in other ways, such as a deterrent in proportion to protect their business interest. It still can't be plucked out of the air.

If it was a true contractual charge they would not have to do any of this (eg You can park here with a permit, or you can park here if you pay £100)

But it is a bigger mess, because according to their signs if you cant park without a permit this then becomes a trespass. So there is no breach of contract at all.

The IPC would be better off either moving to a real contractual model or a real breach model, not some half-assed middle ground.

what does 'follow practice directions' mean?

I usually include this link, but didn't have a mouse at the time.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

I would put that link in the letter, and suggest both parties start with the exchange of information required by paragraph 3.

gmthesecond69

hoohoo wrote: »

ParkingEye just lost a similar case, where they tried to charge a workman who was invited on the premesis by the landowner. The judge described the case as vexatious.

Thanks Hoohoo. Very interesting because, just as an aside, 2 previous tickets dished out have been because I've had workmen on site. In one case they were unloading the entire contents of a new kitchen from a large lorry which, of course, wouldn't fit in one space. Paid someone else to fight the first one and the second I think the company coughed up for, though I did try to persuade them not to.

gmthesecond69

Quick update. Have just emailed the letter about the NTK and will also hand deliver a copy to the cowboys' address, assuming there is some way of doing that. It's not far from where I live.

So just a case of waiting to hear or, hopefully, not hear.

I'll also be on to the DVLA this week asking them to overturn the CPC as the company did not comply with POFA.