NCP parked on white line

andy_reeves

Hi, great forum everyone, I have used this to fight a couple of tickets in the past (successfully) - before anyone slates me I have read the newbies FAQ and still cant decide the best approach here...

This relates to an NCP railway car park, they're clutching at straws here - the white lines are barely distinguishable, on the day of this ticket the passenger side line was pretty good but the drivers side line was not visible at all (photos taken+subsequent photos too showing the poor state of repair)

the driver of my car (which I was the registered keeper-sold it last week), ignored the windscreen notice advising 14 days to pay at discount rate etc, as RK I have now received the notice to keeper advising I have 28 days to appeal (strange that, thought it was 14 days from windscreen notice lol), my question is do I make a representation based on either:

That I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day and they need to prove this
or
Take liability but argue the white lines are in such a poor state that I will not pay the fine ??

Any help appreciated :-)

nosferatu1001

1) Not a fine, you didnt read the newbies very well if youre calling it that!
2) As its a railway statoin then obviously the keeper appeals, points out there is NO KEEPER LIABILTIY as it is railway land subject to byelaws, telling NCP to cancel it or they will be told to cancel it by POPLA. When they reject anyway, because they hope you will pay, you then appela to popla

THis is all covered in the newbies thread.

Fruitcake

Does the NTK state under what legislation it has been issued?

In 2013, NCP were told by the BPA that they must do this.

"... we have informed NCP that they must indicate on their documentation under what legislation they are operating when seeking payment either railway byelaws or contract law/POFA.

Since these occurrences NCP have signed up to the new Code of Practice and subscribed to the new Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) so that if there is a repeat of such incidences, motorists can get redress more readily.

Peter Beasley

Compliance Manager
British Parking Association"

From this wonderful thread on pepipoo, post 548.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64994&st=540

If they have failed to show this, you should complain to the BPA and DVLA. You should in any case complain to your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP about this unregulated scam.

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

Don't forget to send SATs to the DVLA and NCP. See the thread on how to do this.

andy_reeves

all i can see on the letter is the following:

'the PCN was issued for the following breach of the contractual terms and conditions; 'not parked correctly within the markings of a bay space

nothing about the legislation they are adhering to.

The_Deep

It is comtract law so there is no keeper liability under POFA. They know this and should cancel If it went to PoPLA they would lose the appeal.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Fruitcake

I suggest you obtain pics of the car park and signs, including the entrance/entrance signs.

Create a draft PoPLA appeal using all the relevant points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES. Post your draft here for checking before you submit it.

In addition, complain to the BPA and DVLA, quoting the relevant parts of the pepipoo post I linked above.
State that the car park is not relevant land with regard to the POFA, and NCP have failed to state under what legislation they have issued the charge in breach of the BPA's requirements.

Complain robustly to your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP about this unregulated scam, pointing out that NCP are operating a business where they have obtained keeper data knowing that the keeper cannot be held liable.

Make SAR requests to NCP and the DVLA in line with the SAR thread in the main parking forum.

andy_reeves

So this will be the reply to NCP and subsequent POPLA appeal when they reject it....does this look OK ? I will obtain images of the signage tomorrow to send also....

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re PCN number:......

I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.


The PCN was issued for the following breach of the contractual terms and conditions; 'not parked correctly within the markings of a bay space',

NCP must indicate on their documentation under what legislation they are operating when seeking payment, either railway byelaws or contract law/POFA.

The car park is not relevant land with regard to the POFA, and NCP have failed to state under what legislation they have issued the charge, this is in
breach of the BPA's requirement, instead NCP are citing The PCN was issued for the following breach of the contractual terms and conditions; 'not parked
correctly within the markings of a bay space',

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract.

Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis,

which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:

1. Provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day and the signs at the material location and do not withhold any images or data later relied on for
POPLA or court.
2. Explain why you operate in disregard of the GDPR and ICO rules. Nowhere do you inform the public of their right to subject access - why not?

Firms of your ilk were unanimously criticised in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA and IPC were heavily criticised too,
and both appeals systems were condemned. Hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admitted to letting victims 'futilely go through
the motions' of appeal and saying on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP
and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies.
They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point forward must
be made by the Royal Mail postal service. Regardless of any MCOL online system, in this case, service of any court claim must only be made by first class
post to the latest address provided by me.



Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

That's adapted from the old version (I think?) of the appeal in the NEWBIES thread and seems far too long to fit in the NCP appeal box, online. Shorter will do.

andy_reeves

OK, I have cut the bits about old cases etc, is the content correct as I can post rather than online it...?

The PCN was issued for the following breach of the contractual terms and conditions; 'not parked correctly within the markings of a bay space',

NCP must indicate on their documentation under what legislation they are operating when seeking payment, either railway byelaws or contract law/POFA.

The car park is not relevant land with regard to the POFA, NCP have failed to state under what legislation they have issued the charge, this is in
breach of the BPA's requirement, instead NCP are citing The PCN was issued for the following breach of the contractual terms and conditions; 'not parked
correctly within the markings of a bay space',

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract.

Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis,

which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:

1. Provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day and the signs at the material location and do not withhold any images or data later relied on for
POPLA or court.
2. Explain why you operate in disregard of the GDPR and ICO rules. Nowhere do you inform the public of their right to subject access - why not?

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point forward must
be made by the Royal Mail postal service. Regardless of any MCOL online system, in this case, service of any court claim must only be made by first class
post to the latest address provided by me.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

You don't need a gap & new line for 'which is fully distinguished'.

I would never post an appeal to a PPC, if there is an online option, so see if that fits the appeal box online and if not, remove the unnecessary blurb like 'Yours faithfully'.

andy_reeves

OK will do - Thanks for your help :beer: