We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
NCP Scamming Motorists Using Pole Mounted ANPR without Planning Permission
Options
Comments
-
OK back to whats needed.
Newbies thread
Post 2
Helps you start with a defence. If you never parked, clearly you never BY CONDUCT accepted a parking contract.0 -
nosferatu1001 wrote: »OK back to whats needed.
Newbies thread
Post 2
Helps you start with a defence. If you never parked, clearly you never BY CONDUCT accepted a parking contract.
Ok my im all ears..0 -
Oh do come orf it you lot, there is nothing wrong with the Daily Mail, it re-inforces my prejudices.t
I no nude to clune my kayboad due to tee sprayage. :rotfl:I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
So they aren't using a solicitor and therefore can't add the £50 legal fees allowance in the claim. Include a sentence about this in your defence, at the end.
Argue your defence in a logical order:
1. Admit/deny being the driver or RK as the case may be.
2. If denying being the driver, the POFA point about no NtK.
3. Even if you are liable either as driver or as RK, no contract was formed because.... [you didn't park, contract void for impossibility of performance and/or frustration because whilst they offered parking terms, there was no space for you to park in so you had to leave without parking, you may argue that the signage was inadequate and no contract was offered etc]
4.Even if a contract was formed, they are in breach of planning regs as they didn't have permission to use APNR cameras and the doctrine of "non......" applies and the claim ought to be dismissed.
5. Even if a contract was formed, they are only entitled to pursue recovery of £100, not the sum sought. Firstly, since they act in person they are not entitled to the £50 legal fees. Secondly, the other vague add-ins were not a term of any contract offered.
Even if a contract was formed, they are in breach of planning regs as they didn't have permission to use APNR cameras and the doctrine of "non......" applies and the claim ought to be dismissed.
Etc.Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »So they aren't using a solicitor and therefore can't add the £50 legal fees allowance in the claim. Include a sentence about this in your defence, at the end.
Argue your defence in a logical order:
1. Admit/deny being the driver or RK as the case may be.
2. If denying being the driver, the POFA point about no NtK.
3. Even if you are liable either as driver or as RK, no contract was formed because.... [you didn't park, contract void for impossibility of performance and/or frustration because whilst they offered parking terms, there was no space for you to park in so you had to leave without parking, you may argue that the signage was inadequate and no contract was offered etc]
4.Even if a contract was formed, they are in breach of planning regs as they didn't have permission to use APNR cameras and the doctrine of "non......" applies and the claim ought to be dismissed.
5. Even if a contract was formed, they are only entitled to pursue recovery of £100, not the sum sought. Firstly, since they act in person they are not entitled to the £50 legal fees. Secondly, the other vague add-ins were not a term of any contract offered.
Even if a contract was formed, they are in breach of planning regs as they didn't have permission to use APNR cameras and the doctrine of "non......" applies and the claim ought to be dismissed.
Etc.
Apologies, BW Legal are the solicitors. I thought i was asked if I had a solicitor. My mistake0 -
oh ok, forget that then!
Costs-wise they are entitled to £50 solicitors fees, £25 issue fee and the £25 hearing fee. So if you lose, it's the original £100 charge plus another £100. Worst case £200 (plus a bit of interest). You argue against the other add-ons.Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
Apologies, BW Legal are the solicitors. I thought i was asked if I had a solicitor. My mistake
It's only of late that BWLegal have been acting for NCP
The last lot who used BWLegal ... Excel and VCS kept getting a whooping in court
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing0 -
I see. Ok, think i have enough paper emails now.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards