NCP Scamming Motorists Using Pole Mounted ANPR without Planning Permission

DoaM

Or also known as The Daily Fail.

lazy

Ah, Daily Mail. OK... Just googling national papers to obtain their email addresses now before I send them my email to them

Loadsofchildren123

You need to understand what it is the parking cos rely on.


They say that by their signage they offer you a contract to park. By adequately wording and displaying their signs, they say you either did, or should have, seen them and read them. The act of parking is your acceptance of the terms offered. A contract is formed. You have breached it in some way - either by overstaying, or by not paying, or in some cases by entering the wrong registration into the machine (the terms on the sign will say you have to enter your full registration, or words to that effect).


That is the legal basis of the claim.


Somewhere in the t&cs will also be vague wording about "additional" charges - this is where they swoop in and add extra charges to the original £100 (or whatever the original charge is). It is always argued that the additional charges are not adequately defined for them to be a contractual term (and at least one judge has said that the "additional charges" are included in the loss of the discount - so £60 goes up to £100 if you don't pay in time, and the extra £40 is the extra admin charge).


It's a very bad idea to deliberately enter the wrong reg. It's a breach of the terms offered. Often there is human error and then there is an argument that the breach is de minimis (eg getting one digit wrong).


There are other arguments of course - eg that the signage was not capable of offering a contract because it was badly displayed and/or worded.


In your case you seem to be saying you didn't actually park. But you were in the car park for a period of time. Was this because you couldn't find a parking space so left? Again, this allows you to say that you didn't accept the terms and/or any contract was frustrated by the lack of a space - they couldn't perform their end of the bargain by having a free space for you.


There is no "legislation" about entering the correct registration. This is a simple contractual argument - they offer you a parking space in accordance with the terms on their signs. If a term is to enter your full reg, then that's a term of the contract you have chosen to accept.


The lack of planning consent allows you to raise a defence based on the legal principle of "ex dolo malo non oritor actio" - which basically means you cannot found a claim based on an unlawful act (the unlawful cameras). However, I am not aware of a single defence that has succeeded on this point.


Another strong point you have is that they can't prove who was driving. so they have to make you liable as the registered keeper and to do this they have to comply with POFA (read up on this) and they haven't because they failed to send out a NtK. So you need to deny driving and produce some sort of evidence as to why you say you weren't driving (or can't remember if you were) - eg your spouse/daughter/sister regularly drives your car and is on the insurance as a named driver.

beamerguy

lazy wrote: »

Ah, Daily Mail. OK... Just googling national papers to obtain their email addresses now before I send them my email to them

Well done, copy in your MP and also Sir Greg Knight who has introduced the new Parking bill

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

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

You will see mention of BWLegal

Johno100

DoaM wrote: »

Or also known as The Daily Fail.

Or also known as

lazy

Johno100 wrote: »

Or also known as

Oh i see...

The_Deep

We owe £ 242.40


You owe nothing, unless a judge says so. If they took you to court and won, the most a judge is likely to award them would be c@ £200, the rest is a chimera.

Is a solicitor involved? If so they appear to be demanding monies the law does not allow, they know this, but keep doing so as people are often scared of solicitors. IMO this amounts to fraud, or at least unsolicitory behaviour, and should be reported to their regulatory body the SRA.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page.

beamerguy

lazy wrote: »

Oh i see...

Whilst the Daily Mail can come out with rubbish they are second in the ranking for readership .... the first is the Sun ??

They do get the word spread around

The_Deep

Oh do come orf it you lot, there is nothing wrong with the Daily Mail, it re-inforces my prejudices.t

lazy

The_Deep wrote: »

We owe £ 242.40


You owe nothing, unless a judge says so. If they took you to court and won, the most a judge is likely to award them would be c@ £200, the rest is a chimera.

Is a solicitor involved? If so they appear to be demanding monies the law does not allow, they know this, but keep doing so as people are often scared of solicitors. IMO this amounts to fraud, or at least unsolicitory behaviour, and should be reported to their regulatory body the SRA.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page.

No solicitor involved.