NCP / BW Legal - Claim Form received

Fingerbobs

Just bumping this as it looks like it's got lost down on page 5 - this is such a busy forum!

Coupon-mad

I think these two things contradict each other (and 2 typos are noted, in red):

4. Although it is not stated in the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form, it is assumed that the Clamiant is referring to NCP Parking Charge Notice number [PCN Number] received by the Defendent on 26th April 2018, alleging that the vehicle had "parked longer than paid for" on 14th April 2018.

5. The lack of adequate signage makes it impossible to enter into a contract as the first sign is placed partially below the drivers view upon entering the car park, and is written in very small text with no way of reading, rejecting and exiting the car park without first fully entering it. The additional signs placed within the car park are very verbose and written in unclear language and small text, and cannot be read without first parking within the car park and leaving the vehicle to approach the signs on foot. It is therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

What I mean about a contradiction is, if the car was parked and the driver did pay for a ticket then the driver DID enter into a de facto contract, i.e. they agreed to the terms as displayed, and paid a tariff.

So, you can't then say that the signs are ''incapable of creating a contract'' at all!

What you can say, is that the signs are incapable of binding a driver to any £100 charge, because the signs at the machine only list the small tariffs and make no mention of any penalty in large lettering. Therefore the only contract agreed was to pay a tariff for actual parking time, and this was done, so any contravention is denied.

And nothing at all warns a driver, on the PDT machine screen, that their arrival time has unexpectedly been secretly logged from the time they drove in past an ANPR camera, which on busy days could easily be some 10 -15 minutes before the driver stands at the PDT machine after finding a parking space and reading the tariffs. And nor does the PDT machine itself mention £100 on the tariff list, which is a misleading omission of relevant facts, contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, which protects consumers from unfair or misleading trading practices and bans misleading omissions and aggressive sales tactics.

I think you need to add in a section about grace periods, quoting from the BPA CoP. Seems to me NCP are alleging 17 minute overstay, so I would say in your defence that you are having to guess what the allegation is, but if they are trying to say that 17 minutes was not paid for, then not only was that 17 minutes not 'parking' time, but the BPA CoP requires operators to allow a reasonable observation period and a grace period.

Search the forum for defence Kevin Reynolds grace periods true (ADVANCED SEARCH - SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS) and you will find some written before with that point in them.

Fingerbobs

Thank you for all your help! I really appreciate the effort that posters here go to just to help other people. This is a fantastic resource.


I have submitted my Defence online via MCOL. It turned out to be exactly 122 lines, so fitted on the form perfectly (I doubt I could have achieved that if I'd tried!) but now wondering if there is any disadvantage to doing it like this?


As I have mentioned before, I am only defending the claim on principle because it seems grossly unfair. I'm not that fussed about it really.

KeithP

So you chose to ignore the guidance in post #8.

There is a very good reason for not submitting a Defence via the MCOL online system and the reason is clearly explained in Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Fingerbobs

KeithP wrote: »

So you chose to ignore the guidance in post #8.

There is a very good reason for not submitting a Defence via the MCOL online system and the reason is clearly explained in Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

What, "trying to fit it in the online box destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read"?


I didn't try to fit it onto the form - it happened to exactly fit without any editing - and it looked fine to me when I reviewed it after submitting.


I am very grateful for all the help and guidance.

Fingerbobs

I have just today received a copy of BW Legal's completed Directions Questionnaire, but I have not yet received my own Directions Questionnaire to complete and return. Is this normal?

Coupon-mad

Yes. It is, and we are constantly asked about this on endless threads.

Fingerbobs

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes. It is, and we are constantly asked about this on endless threads.

Thank you. I checked the Newbies thread and the other threads linked therefrom, but couldn't find the answer to this. One of the threads says I should contact the court if the DQ hasn't arrived "within a week" but it's not clear when that week starts.

Fingerbobs

At risk of being told off again, how soon does the Directions Questionnaire typically arrive? I still haven't received mine.

KeithP

Typically, it will be more than a month after filing your Defence.

I have just updated the list in post #8 above to include:

• Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
  
• Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.