[ En Te See] NTK ignored :( [Bee UU Legal] follow up advice please

nosferatu1001

Well the first is not just a SAR, but a restriction.

The_Deep

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

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons 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. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

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

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..

RippedOffBritain

indeed it is , as from the reading I'd done I thought CM had suggested we should at least 'Request' that they shouldn't pass on our data, however erading through again, I will send that later and initially send the simple version I think, I've printed the NTC Letter so will pop that in the post this afternoon, and email the dvla, though I know what they hold really as theyve just provided me with the replacement V5c as I didn't have it handy after all.

RippedOffBritain

So BW Legal ramped things up in January, (7th)
I received an email from them, The first time ?? 7th Jan
I received a letter from them stating that they had started Court Claim proceedings and to expect a Court letter in the post soon.(Dated 7th Jan)
I received the CCBC Claim form in the post [Issue Date 07th Jan] (+5days)
** Does this mean defence needs to be filed on or before the 11th Feb please Keith?

I still have no response to my emailed SAR request to DVLA
I still have no response to my posted SAR request to NTC using the only postal address found on their website (despite the ridiculous disclaimer that staff at this address cannot assist in parking matters or such BS)

I haven’t at this point requested info from BW Legal, should I send a SAR request to them also? Al Beit that it’s probably too late to arrive before court proceedings may be set ? or is there a time delay after the defence has been submitted?

Is it worth sending a copy of the NTC SAR to BW Legal and request that they pass it on to their clients as their clients have so far ignored the request posted 20/11/18?

I will retry DVLC in the hope that their response can be a little quicker.

Do I have to formally request the hearing at a local CC or is that automatic? And is the ‘Jurisdiction of the court’ left well alone? Or is that where I would request a different court area?
Sorry for the Newb Questions, well out of my depth … and far from Fluent in Legalese..

Can anyone confirm that BW legal need to have both entry and exit pics to the carpark to prove duration and hence whether there was a parking contravention at all? (or pictorial evidence of the actual parking? as I have driven in and out of this carpark before just to allow traffic flow at certain times when the road has been blocked)And if they do have these pics should they have dated and timed pictures? Or are typed date and time underneath accepted as correct?
I will attempt to form a defence for review after refreshing ‘post 2 of the ‘newbies’, but answers to the above would be appreciated in the first place, Thanks..

Copy of the PoC noted below for additional clarity

Issue Date: 07 JAN 2019
Particulars of Claim:
The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on /03/2018 (Issue Date) at (TIME) at (LOCATION).
The PCN relates to Model under registration (REG). The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from /03/2018 to 04/01/2019 being an amount of £6.90.
The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.
Costs Breakdown:
• Amount Claimed - £167.90
• Court fee - £25.00
• Legal representative's costs - £50
• Total amount - £242.90
Exact figures altered …


as before any and all assistance greatly appreciated..:beer:

added question, why does the added interest

KeithP

RippedOffBritain wrote: »

I received the CCBC Claim form in the post [Issue Date 07th Jan] (+5days)
** Does this mean defence needs to be filed on or before the 11th Feb please Keith?

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th January, you had until Monday 28th January to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

Did you do the AoS by that date?
Please confirm.

If not, do the AoS immediately, now, today, this minute.

To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Be warned, you may already be too late to do the AoS, as the Claimant has had since the beginning of this week to seek a Judgment by Default against you.



If you did do the AoS, or it has been accepted now, you do indeed have until 4pm on Monday 11th February 2019 to file your Defence.

That's no long. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. 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.

RippedOffBritain

@KeithP

Did you do the AoS by that date?
Please confirm.

Yes sorry \Keith, My computer crashed mid posting so I had already written the completion of AOS in the timeline but forgot to add it to the retyped entry completed before 21st Jan

thanks for the clarification..

RippedOffBritain

ok Belatedly writing the defence today as It has to be in before Monday,
I have had no reply to my SAR from NTC, so although it's too late I propose to email BW legal (DONE)to request they pass it on to their client as they have ignored my posted version?? as well as posting another copy to the 'other' NTC address I have found, which I suspect is probably in BW legal's offices anyway as its Leeds and at least one letter from BW LEGAL had NTC paperwork in the same envelope?? as a previous poster had requested, they and I cannot find any address for NTC's Data Protection Officer ?? (does anyone know one?)

I'm still not sure what "Legal" angles of defence other than the signs being substandard and too small to notice (which is true, but not sure of the exact contravention) so will attempt a poor signage/lack of pofa information defence as 'driver not known', so although they say they will pursue the RK the fact that they havent quoted Pofa is the defence? their actual paperwork states

"Registered keeper details and \data \processing"
"Please note that we have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this unpaid charge. Such information has been provided in accordance with the Road Vehicles(Registration and licensing) Regulations2002.
If you consider such information has been used or obtained inappropriately you may complain to the DVLA(https://www.gov.uk) or the Information Commissioner (www.ico.org.uk)."

does this statement circumnavigate the lack of Pofa information and protocol?


I know its completely my fault for leaving it this long but when you have a lot going on and this stuff makes your stomach turn over with anguish its all to easy to not get around to it. But I'm adamant I'm not paying anything for a very short stop in an empty NHS property car park to pick up a prescription in a chemist opposite unless a Judge/Magistrate tells me I have to...

Also can anyone that has a PCN NTK from Norwich traffic control confirm whether their NTK details including photo's are available to view online in their NTC online portal?? Mine says 'NTK not found' now?? possibly because its transferred to BW Legal? but in the information they hold on me would be handy to help form the defence in the absence of the SAR reply

cheers

Le_Kirk

Found this on NTC site: -

Your rights of access
You have the right to submit a subject access request to ourselves via email this will then be sent over to our DPO. To follow up with your request we will need proof of identity before providing you with information that we hold on yourself. Email us at [EMAIL="Office@norwichtrafficcontrol.com"]Office@norwichtrafficcontrol.com[/EMAIL] for any subject access request and we shall pass this on to the DPO

RippedOffBritain

Thanks Le_Kirk.. That'll teach me not to keep looking... it wasn't there when I originally looked , but to be fair that was a couple of months ago now, time really flies.. Thankyou, I'll submit it now despite being too late really., Thanks again.

EDIT still not seeing it on the site? can you link the page to me, please? maybe I have Enraged Blindness: s

RippedOffBritain

Ok Still Blinded by the Legalease, I have effectively adapted what I believed to be based on a BP Defence modified as the situation is very different, Blue Text
are what I would imagine I would expand upon in a Witness Statement at a later stage apart from (5) which is an alternative point as I believe original 5 is not valid in this instance?agreed!! changes now listed in bright green text any pointers good or bad gratefully accepted as I have to enter the defence before 4 pm Monday but would prefer to have it in Sunday, if I get any feedback.Running Edits have been added in Green text


IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM No XXXXXX
BETWEEN:
NORWICH TRAFFIC CONTROL LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay, whilst displaying a Valid Blue Badge for Disabled Blue Badge Holders, allocated to NHS Adelaide Street Health Centre at the car park adjacent to NHS Adelaide Street Health Centre, opposite Lloyds Chemist Adelaide Street/West End Street junction. Expand on the position in (WS) with photos of the area and google maps information

3. The Particulars of Claim state that 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Assume this applies as the poc simply says:-


4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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. Again assume this is correct based on the lack of breach detail in the POC just ‘he owes’

5. 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.They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom[/I] Should this section be removed? As if standing in front of a sign closer than actual and at closer distance rather than as in ‘actual’ fact not seen as driving in or when parked? The terms suggest effectively any parking
Potential point 5 replacement completely.

5. a)Contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation the Claimant has refused to release any information relating to the alleged incident, buy not responding to a postal SAR request in over two months (Proof of posting available)

5. b) No Data Protection Officer information was available on the Claimants website.

5. c) The Original Notice to Keeper (NTK) was sent with one, timed dated EXIT Photograph only, with No ‘Entry time’ information at all. I firmly believe that this was a deliberate ploy because the ‘Entry time’ would have shown the petty amount of time the vehicle was ‘onsite’ which would have assisted the defendant in any appeal and even prevented the sending of the Notice To Keeper in the first instance, if the Decision had actually been referred to a ‘Human’.

5. d) This lack of full information and documentation has left the defendant severely disadvantaged and prejudiced in trying to form an accurate defence.

5. e) A refusal to supply any data, evidence or information about the contract or the alleged breach in the pre-court phase also rides roughshod over the 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims (the PAP), a mandatory protocol with which the Claimant and their robo-claim solicitors are more than familiar. By abandoning the requirements of the PAP and the Practice Direction and refusing to supply data the Claimant is seeking to deny me access to the most basic documents and information.

5.f) The Defendant suggests that, when it comes to the matter of costs, the Claimant's wholly unreasonable conduct must be considered, with indemnity costs in the Defendant's favour. The Claimant will be aware that the court has the power to award costs against even a successful Claimant.

5.g) This notoriously litigious parking firm are using a solicitor which files tens of thousands of parking claims per annum and thus the claimant has no excuse for ignoring the relevant protocols and DPA law and cannot be granted relief from costs sanctions.

5.h) On 24th January this year, in a similarly unevidenced/lacking in particulars parking firm claim (PCM v Mr A, claim number E7GF9C9V) at Edmonton Court, DDJ Genn dismissed the claim and awarded the Defendant costs on the indemnity basis in the sum of £1250, with the Judge stating in an Order that will be produced in evidence:'Claimant is to pay Defendant's costs (assessed in the sum of £1250) pursuant to CPR P5 27.14 because of its unreasonable conduct in not responding to Defendant [...] and non compliance with the pre-action protocol for debt claims'.
Expand in (Ws).

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, has no clear signage at entrance to the carpark and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. I would expand on this with sign pictures and locations relevant to the place parked in this instance within the (WS)

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8 a) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case, £60. The claim includes an additional £40 for late payment and an additional £60,+int. for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at ‘double recovery’. Again I would expand on this with exhibits in the( WS)

8.b) The Proof that this Additional £60 is ‘fictitious’ is borne out in the way it has been noted and portrayed in the various Letters received from the Claimant, in the initial correspondence through various letters from BW Legal to the County Court Claim form where the amount swaps from one column to another and back again, changing from a Claimant cost to Solicitors cost then returning to the Claimant again. Again I would expand on this with exhibits in the( WS)

9. 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.

Name
Signature
Date



An additional question as having sent an SAR to NTC using the email that Le_Kirk supplied(I still couldn't find it btw... But there is an instant reply that says only monitored Mon-Friday etc, that also has the following text... can they actually do that?? I didn't see any message before I emailed them!!

Thank you for emailing Norwich Traffic Control. This mailbox is only monitored Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. Your email will be picked up during this time. If your email requires an urgent response outside of this time please call (01603) 50 60 61 choosing option 4.



Regards



NTC



Please be aware that by emailing, writing to or otherwise contacting Norwich Traffic Control Limited, its partners or subsidiaries you give express consent for us to retain and process your data. Your data may be passed to third parties for the purposes of recovering unpaid parking charges and will not be exclusively used for the parking charge your are contacting us about. Your data will be stored for a maximum of 6 years or until such time as it is no longe r required. Any person data relating to a cancelled, void or paid charge will be removed after 30 days from the status being set as such but the registration and event details will remain.