Help with appeal

tomk5510

Have received a NTK from NPM Ltd, the vehicle was parked in a mostly empty car park near the town centre of Northampton there were some signs but it didn't look official at all. The passenger was left in the vehicle to explain to any parking officer that the driver had gone to ask directions to the hospital as was visiting a friend involved in a very bad car crash. However, a man drove by and took photos of the car and would not listen to the passenger. A letter had been sent back stating that there were mitigating circumstances and that the charge was far too high for a less than five minute stay. However their reply stated that the appeal was rejected as it was private property and there was no permit displayed, but did say it was unattended which it was not. They say I could appeal to the IAS and forfeit the discount to £60 for £100. Do I try to appeal through IAS or do I send this letter or do I ignore and wait for a notice before court letter. I have until the 22/10/17 to appeal through IAS. Please help me. I do have photos of the signage and letters but am unsure how to upload.

Dear NPM LTD

Re PCN number: *********

I am the keeper of the vehicle and am aware of your purported 'parking charge'. The driver will not be identified. I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.
You have stated in response to my original letter that “the vehicle is parked, stationary and unattended on private land” however, as shown by your own photographs this is clearly untrue as there is someone present inside the vehicle.
I also believe that the Notice to Keeper you sent to me is defective as there is more than one Abington Street in the UK. Therefore, it fails on the strict interpretation of the PoFA Sch 4, 8 or 9 as it does not identify the relevant land.
Your signage merely invites permit holders to park, it is forbidding because it prohibits parking without a permit, meaning at mostly the driver would have committed trespass (actionable by the landowner). I refer you to such cases as Park Control Management UK Ltd v Christopher Bull and two others 2016, UKPC v Sean Materson 2016, ES Parking enforcement vs Mrs A 2016, Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford 2016 and VCS v Phillip 2016.
If you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the IPC Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, as seems likely based on my research) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle.

I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply. Any court action will be vigorously defended with costs sought.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Thomas Kelly
THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER GOES HERE. THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

Redx

if an appeal has already been made to NPM then you IGNORE anything except an LBC or an MCOL within 6 years

see the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread for details

tomk5510

The issue is it was a very poor appeal and this one is much better. I did read the newbie thread and a number of other articles. I know that you cannot ignore a letter before claim but what is a MCOL? What harm would come if I sent them this? Or go through IAS? Thanks for the swift reply.

fisherjim

"A letter had been sent back stating that there were mitigating circumstances..."

Which they have taken as an appeal, you are really now at the wait and see stage, though you have entered Private Parking scamland so nothing you say will really get it cancelled, they are only after money.

"...the vehicle was parked in a mostly empty car park"

Means nothing at all!

"there were some signs but it didn't look official at all."

I am sure you have learnt you lesson re that one, but some photos would help for any possible court claim.

"the charge was far too high for a less than five minute stay"

That argument was blown away by the Beavis Case, however the five minutes would constitute a grace period.

Just follow Redx's advice and expect some silly ignorable debt collection letters to arrive next.
If it's these useless articles you have little to fear though if they carry on to form:

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/National_Parking_Management.html_formerly_Northamptonshire_Parking_Management.html

We don't recommend an appeal to the IAS it's a kangaroo court, and you won't win.
MCOL is Money Claims On Line, the link to the small claims court.

Redx

acronyms are explained in post #5 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread

please read it

you only get one chance to appeal to a PPC

nothing you can say or do will change their minds !!

its like Canute trying to hold back the North Sea on the beach in the wash

the sooner you realise its pay in full or IGNORE for 6 years unless you get an LBC or an MCOL the better

if you are looking for an easy get out , there isnt one