Ncp threatening legal action

simbororo2018

Following on from the previous post I have now received a response to SAR from NCP and a follow-up letter from BW legal.
1. The pictures sent show the car entering and leaving the car park after 11 minutes. The driver confirmed entry to the car park and driving around looking for space as it is a huge car park but there was none so moved on to another NCP car park down the road, parked and paid of which there is proof.
2. Even though NTK and keeper liability notice were sent with the documents, these were never received in the post as per the dates on them. I reckon they are issuing these notices without posting them because the first I heard of this was from the debt collection agent.
3. The pictures do not show the car parked.
4. NCP has also not sent the contract as requested in the SAR letter I sent and BW Legal did not send it as well in reply to my rebuttal.

BW legal have sent a letter still requesting the money and giving 14 days for me to respond. Do I ignore and wait for LBC or should I continue to respond to the letters? If I need to respond what should I include? Thanks in advance

simbororo2018

Following on from the previous post I have now received a response to SAR from NCP and a follow-up letter from BW legal.
1. The pictures sent show the car entering and leaving the car park after 11 minutes. The driver confirmed entry to the car park and driving around looking for space as it is a huge car park but there was none so moved on to another NCP car park down the road, parked and paid of which there is proof.
2. Even though NTK and keeper liability notice were sent with the documents, these were never received in the post as per the dates on them. I reckon they are issuing these notices without posting them because the first I heard of this was from the debt collection agent.
3. The pictures do not show the car parked.
4. NCP has also not sent the contract as requested in the SAR letter I sent and BW Legal did not send it as well in reply to my rebuttal.

BW legal have sent a letter still requesting the money and giving 14 days for me to respond. Do I ignore and wait for LBC or should I continue to respond to the letters? If I need to respond what should I include? Thanks in advance

nosferatu1001

Tell them that clearly the two grace periods MANDATED by the BPA Code of Practice cover his, and any threatened court action will not succeed, as their clients compliance with this code of practice is necessary for theiir charge to escape the Penalty rule, as per Beavis.

There was no contract accepted *by performance*. The driver never parked.
Their client should be informed of this.

The_Deep

Looking for a space is not parking

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

no contract was agreed, therefore there can be no breach of contract. Tell them to go forth and multiply. Watch the video below.

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 in the house as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an
M.P. for unprofessional conduct

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

Coupon-mad

1. The pictures sent show the car entering and leaving the car park after 11 minutes.

Did anyone in the car have Google location enabled on their phone that day? Check. Or a Dashcam or telematics that store data/locations/times from each day?

Redx

so same as this thread


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5876780/bw-legal-ringing-family-members


except its 11 minutes not 12 minutes

simbororo2018

Hi all,

after going back and forth with BW LEGAL i am now at the defence stage of this drama. Pls see draft below and any input are welcome.


DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXX on the material date. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for a ‘parking contravention’. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct by entering the car park on 10/04/2018 at 09:15 and exiting 11 minutes and 11 seconds after.

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' or £100 if not paid within 28 days from the PCN notice.
3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX was within the car park for a total of 11 minutes and 11 seconds, according to the Claimant’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The Claimant is put to strict proof that entry and exit pictures in that time does not constitute parking.
As a British Parking Association (BPA) member and approved operator, the Claimant must comply with the mandatory BPA Code of Practice (CoP), of which Version 6 was in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to the BPA CoP Version 6, which was considered effectively ‘regulation’ by Judges at the Supreme Court.

3.1 The BPA CoP Section 13 requires the Claimant to allow two ‘grace periods’ – one reasonable period at the beginning of the parking period, and a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period. The Defendant attests that for a huge car park like the one in this claim 11 minutes falls within the grace period. As such, the Claim is in breach of the BPA CoP.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the claim for the monies due as a result of a PCN for parking contravention which occurred on 10/04/2018 and does not state if the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case.

5.The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i. A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii. A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.

6. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.
6.1. The defendant did not receive any notice from National Car Parks Ltd relating to this (PCN) whatsoever before a debt collection letter was received from Trace Debt recovery on 06/06/2018. The Defendant would suggest there should be solid evidence of this notice been sent i.e. (recorded delivery, tracking details, proof of postage) to show this has been delivered to the defendant’s current address which XXXXXXX. The defendant moved to this address on XXXXXX 8 years before the PCN.

7. Furthermore the claimant has confirmed via email letter dated 05th November 2018 that they are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the claimant is pursuing me as the “Registered Keeper”, as the claimant is not relying on (POFA) liability cannot be transferred to the “Registered Keeper” and the claimant can only pursue the “Driver”, as the driver has not been identified there should be no grounds to purse me as the “Registered Keeper”, and would suggest that this case is withdrawn with immediate effect.

8. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

9. In spite of the Defendant’s request, the Claimant has failed to supply details of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention, which, according to the Claimant, details the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Civil Practice Direction 16, Paragraph 7.3. Furthermore, the Letter of Claim sent on behalf of the Claimant did not include this information, which is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

10. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing ‘millions’ of claims with an administrative team and only a handful of solicitors, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut-and-paste robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

10.1 In the alternative, it was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.

11. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this defence are true.

ps: I also have proof of payment to anothe NCP site close to the one in this claim where the driver parked and paid after leaving this car park due to no space. Do I need to make a comment on that or at the witness statement stage?

KeithP

You haven't explicitly said, but it looks like you may have received a County Court Claim Form. Is that right?

If so, what is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

simbororo2018

Yes I received a county court form already. I have done the Acknowledgement of service. I now have till 28th of February to respond.

KeithP

You answered one of the three questions.
Thanks for confirming that.