Court fees advice please.

Norfolk_Boi

I was sent an NTK from Norwich Traffic Control dated the 30th of September. Now I know that legally I am not obligated to pay it and so I have not. I did appeal via email (using the template on this very useful site. Thank you) and received a response where they stated that it doesn't matter if I denied liability or not. I was responsible for the Charge.

I have done some research on this company and I know just how dirty and downright unethical they are and I'm loathed to give them any money. (Although it appears that they really need it right now due to the actions of a former director named Andre who, allegedly, stole from company funds. Naughty, naughty boi).

Anyhow, they had refereed it to debt collectors who wrote two letters to me, which I ignored.

My question is simple. IF they take me to court then I believe I am responsible for legal fees. Am I talking hundreds of some kind of fixed fee?

I am debating about just paying to get them to fcuk off. Or do I risk potentially facing hundreds of pounds in legal fees or maybe just a fixed fee or £100 or something?

Umkomaas

My question is simple. IF they take me to court then I believe I am responsible for legal fees. Am I talking hundreds of some kind of fixed fee?

Totally wrong - if they take you to court, you are responsible for nothing, unless you lose then it's:

£100 original parking charge
£25 court filing fee
£50 (capped max) solicitor fees - if expended and the PPC is able to show a payment has been made
£x tiny bit of interest between date of infringement and hearing date
£25 hearing fee - if it gets that far.

That's it ~ £200 +/-

But I don't recall any NTC appetite to visit the inside of any British county court room. Especially if you're based somewhere distant to their operating base.

Norfolk_Boi

Ah thank you. I guess it would cost them a lot more then me if they were to do it. I'm fine with that lol.

I live in Norwich just down the road from their headquarters and even quite close to the home of the majority shareholder Miss Edmonds.

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

beamerguy

Norfolk_Boi wrote: »

Ah thank you. I guess it would cost them a lot more then me if they were to do it. I'm fine with that lol.

I live in Norwich just down the road from their headquarters and even quite close to the home of the majority shareholder Miss Edmonds.

My understanding is that this little bunch are just playing "big boys" without the intelligence. They could of course employ one of the dodgy legals but that is "costa-lot"

It's good to see you know who are the "Norfolk Broads"

ppc_guy

Firstly you must be very careful when you make accusations about me - especially seeing as the person who originally posted on FB was reprimanded by the police for doing so and indeed 2 months later there is no case to answer - Amazing how 2 people have "allegedly" left the same business to start up on their own and both get accused by NTC of the verbatim same things...

Secondly NTC now use BW legal and whilst i was there I personally entered norwich county court on several occasions - indeed NTC dealing with cases further away whilst they were self litigating would have been difficult but now they use BW legal an advocate will be sent without issue.

That said even at that point they would have to prove the usual things that are proveable in court - The site contract could be interesting on some sites they "operate" on as they were for fixed terms and would have expired.

Norfolk_Boi

ppc_guy wrote: »

Firstly you must be very careful when you make accusations about me - especially seeing as the person who originally posted on FB was reprimanded by the police for doing so and indeed 2 months later there is no case to answer - Amazing how 2 people have "allegedly" left the same business to start up on their own and both get accused by NTC of the verbatim same things...

Secondly NTC now use BW legal and whilst i was there I personally entered norwich county court on several occasions - indeed NTC dealing with cases further away whilst they were self litigating would have been difficult but now they use BW legal an advocate will be sent without issue.

That said even at that point they would have to prove the usual things that are proveable in court - The site contract could be interesting on some sites they "operate" on as they were for fixed terms and would have expired.

I presume you are Andre? If the information I was given is wrong then you do have my humblest apologies. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong, although I am a stubborn b'stard when it comes to a unjustified Parking Charge!

Norfolk_Boi

Thank you for the response, but I am getting totally mixed replies. According to the Citizens Advise Bureau and even he County Court website it could be very expensive!

However, they didn't respond to my appeal. No POPLA reference, conflicting date and times on the images taken as 'proof' and the time of the offence.

They claim that I was observed parking on the car park the day before on the 28th at 18:30 hrs, I asked for proof, they sent an image as which is time/ date stamped the 29th at 06:42 hrs.

The image they sent on the NTK is date/ time stamped 29/09/2018 at 06:42. hrs.

The Date/ time of the 'offence' is 29/09/2018 at 07:47 hrs

Bit of inconsistency there, or am I just people picky?

The_Deep

CAB may well be useful if you are in debt, or wrongly dismissed, but are abysmal when it comes to private parking scams.

According to Companies House in 2017 they had total net assets of £108. Cost them a bit more, complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Norfolk_Boi

Yes I saw that too. £108 net worth and over £4,000 in liabilities. It seems strange that Norwich Traffic Control Limited (07129222) was dissolved on the 14th of May 2013, and then Norwich Traffic Control (08540061) started on the 22 May 2013 with one of the same Directors and same address.

WelshGoblin

Umkomaas wrote: »

Totally wrong - if they take you to court, you are responsible for nothing, unless you lose then it's:

£100 original parking charge
£25 court filing fee
£50 (capped max) solicitor fees - if expended and the PPC is able to show a payment has been made
£x tiny bit of interest between date of infringement and hearing date
£25 hearing fee - if it gets that far.

That's it ~ £200 +/-

But I don't recall any NTC appetite to visit the inside of any British county court room. Especially if you're based somewhere distant to their operating base.

There can also be judgement costs added (up to another £175) but only if they use a lawyer (which can include in-house) and only if the judge allows. They are set out at part 45 civil procedure rules