Two fines with NCP

ulukai

Just an update on this, I submitted both appeals, one has come back with a pretty extensive couple of PDFs from NCP refuting just about all my points, is there anything I should add in further comments?, I'd say it's not looking good looking at their evidence, Also I did name my self as the driver, fool that I am.

Coupon-mad

Yes you must add comments. Search the forum for POPLA comments as keywords.

Of course their response is not 'extensive'. LOL! It's a template reply, with a few photos.

KeithP

Check there response line by line.

We have even seen images of signs from car parks over 100 miles away from the alleged incident.

Check everything.

ulukai

Hi, I received this back from Popla regarding my second appeal, it seems that the hire company did pay one of the fines before I had even been told about the PCN, where would this leave me with the hire company/my company/POPLA



[FONT=&quot]"Thank you for your recent appeal submission.

We have recently received communication from the operator confirming that you have paid the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in full. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The British Parking Association Code of Practice under Section 37.7 states, “Under the Code, you must have procedures for dealing fairly, efficiently and promptly with any communication from the motorist. The procedures must give drivers and keepers the chance to challenge a Parking Charge Notice. If a motorist pays a Parking Charge Notice and then appeals, you do not have to consider the appeal unless you opt to do so.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As you have paid the PCN, POPLA is unable to assess your appeal. As such, your appeal has been withdrawn."[/FONT]

Umkomaas

Have the hire company charged you for it (along with a tasty admin fee!)?

sutenvulf

They were put on hold by my company pending the appeals, I told my hr(over a month ago) that I would not accept any charges or admin fees and referred them to the codes/practices suggested by a previous poster so they could exclude them selves, never heard back and my wages are unaffected though I think they were looking into it, it could be that its been forgotten about.

Coupon-mad

Reply to POPLA and tell them you didn't pay, so either an unauthorised third party may have done, or the parking firm is lying or mistaken, and you do not accept the POPLA appeal being 'withdrawn' and it must continue.

KeithP

sutenvulf, why are you posting on this thread?

ulukai

Hello, I'm at the county court stage on this since my appeals failed, would someone mind having a flick over this defence please? particularly concerned about points 4 and 11 making sure I have the wording and figures right, the total claim is for more than £250 but I've obviously removed the court fee and interest to end up at £210.


Also I'm only fighting one of the fines since popla refused to hear my appeal for the first fine but my company never made me pay it, the hire company did, so it's all good.




IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:

BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

DEFENCE

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


2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

Particulars of Claim

3. The Claimant’s solicitors BWLegal are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to The Defendant’s significant detriment.

4.The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
iii How the “Principal Debt and Initial Legal Costs” of £210 has been calculated.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought i.e. whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This has denied the Defendant a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way and therefore several defences are included.


6. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'. Furthermore, use of ANPR only indicate alleged time of entry and exit and not a true reflection of how long the car has been parked. No evidence has been provided that a valid ticket was not purchased.

7. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case.

8. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and/or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a full disclosure of the Claimant's case.

No legally binding contract

9. 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 when parking at xx on xxx. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

10. In any event, it is denied that the signage used by this claimant at the time of the alleged contravention, could have created a fair or transparent contract. The signage and ticket machine were inconsistent, confusing, and hence incapable of binding the driver, thus distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis.

11. The terms on the Claimant's signage did not make it clear what the terms were for the car park and the terms are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, 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.

Unconscionable and unreasonable inflation of costs

10. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. The driver has not been identified, the PDT machines and signs/terms are not prominent, the VRN data is harvested excessively by two automated but conflicting data systems and the PCN was sent with a 'parking charge' that bears no resemblance to the £8 'parking charge' tariff, and as such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.

11. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the claimants have artificially inflated the value of the claim by adding purported terms and conditions costs of £60 plus ‘legal representative costs of £50, which the defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the claimant and constitute an attempt to achieve double recovery.

11.1. The added 'legal' costs are in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules. The Claimant's solicitors, BW Legal, recently admitted in court that their company handles millions of what are effectively cut and paste robo-claims, at any one time. The Defendant reasonably concludes that no supervising solicitor is likely to have provided legal advice for a fee or in any way supervised this claim.

12. In ParkingEye v Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a sum set in advance which was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime. Damages could not be added; it was held that a claim from a parking firm agent could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed because ParkingEye suffered no loss.

12.1. It was also held by the Judges in Beavis, at Court of Appeal stage, that a case regarding an ordinary transactional contractual fee (such as in a pay and display car park with a quantifiable tariff) was 'entirely different' from the complex situation in that case.

12.2. In all other 'parking charge' cases which turn on different signs and different facts, the penalty rule was held by the Supreme Court Judges to remain engaged, and that such charges cannot be enforced merely as punishment. The £85 charge in Beavis was saved from being struck out as an unenforceable penalty due to a specific legitimate interest in a quick turnover of spaces in a free car park where no tariff owing could be quantified.

Data Protection concerns

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect £100 instead of the few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.


14. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras at a car park where there would likely be no cars unconnected to patrons, no trespass nor 'unauthorised' parking event.

15. It is one thing to install PDT machines, but quite another to run an ANPR camera data stream alongside the PDT data stream, and then use one against the other, against the rights and interests of thousands of unsuspecting visitors to the city, who are being caught out regularly by this trap.

16. Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from a few pounds to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

17. Unlike the free car park in Beavis, this Centre is a site where the Claimant has machines to take payment of tariffs. Clearly there will be NCP staff regularly onsite to empty the money from the machines, who could reasonably enforce parking rules with drivers face to face, whilst managing the car park fairly and ensuring that any PDT machine is clear and obvious to drivers and not a hidden 'pitfall or trap'. The ANPR cameras represent disproportionate and excessive data processing, given the nature of this location, and the Claimant's DPO is put to strict proof of its data risk assessment and compliance with the Information Commissioners Office's ANPR surveillance camera Code of Practice.

No locus standi


18. 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.

19. It is believed that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied by the Claimant until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.

20. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

21. 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.

Statement of Truth:

KeithP

Have you received a County Court Claim Form?

If so, what is the Issue Date on it?