NCP Fine - BW Legal Letter of Claim

RINCO

Hi Beamer,

I agree, Rather lackluster reply.

The reply was from Steve Clark

beamerguy

RINCO wrote: »

Hi Beamer,

I agree, Rather lackluster reply.

The reply was from Steve Clark

REALLY ???? but we all thought that Steve Clark was one of the sensible ones in the BPA.

To write such a letter kind of shows that the BPA has now reached a crisis point.

When the new government CoP becomes law, the BPA will only have one function ..... to accept members of the private parking industry to access the DVLA for your data.

I am very surprised that Steve Clark has lowered himself down to the level of the scam IPC/IAS

RINCO

beamerguy wrote: »

REALLY ???? but we all thought that Steve Clark was one of the sensible ones in the BPA.

To write such a letter kind of shows that the BPA has now reached a crisis point.

When the new government CoP becomes law, the BPA will only have one function ..... to accept members of the private parking industry to access the DVLA for your data.

I am very surprised that Steve Clark has lowered himself down to the level of the scam IPC/IAS

Unfortunately so but I guess all is not lost as of yet.

For what its worth I did reply reiterating that it was with clear intent I entered the car park to pay the charge. Circumstances change as often happens in day to day life and the person I was originally meant to meet was already there waiting for me which surely fits the purpose of a grace period in the first place? but who am I to judge.

RINCO

Hi,

I've received back the SAR from NCP.

What is the best way to display what I have been provided on here? in summary this is what I have / have not been provided.

I asked for vs what was provided :

- ALL photos taken / CCTV Footage to support the claim.
Photo of the front of the vehicle entering the car park. Photo of the rear of the vehicle leaving the car park no driver can be seen. Times are recorded on the photo

- A close up of the parking signs as displayed on 17th August 2018
Not provided.

- Proof of payment from NCP to a debt collection firm to instruct them to collect the debt owed by the person aforementioned.
Not Providied

- A copy of all letters and emails from the date of contravention from NCP
Copys of the two PCN letters have been sent. and a rejection letter from an initial appeal.

- A copy of the PDT Machine record for 17th August 2018.
Not provided

- ALL data held regarding the debt.
Data sent includes;
-Names and address of myself
-Vehicle details, Make model and colour

- ALL supporting evidence regarding the debt.
Again only evidence provided is photo of the front of the vehicle entering the car park. Photo of the rear of the vehicle leaving the car park no driver can be seen.

- A full copy of the PCN, NTK
Initial letters of PCN provided only

- A list of all PCNs outstanding against myself.
Initial letters of PCN provided only



If it helps here is the response from initial appeal. Happy to provide other info just let me know. Thanks all for your help so far.

Thank you for your appeal received on 31/08/2018 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge
Notice, we have reviewed your case and considered the comments you have made. Your appeal has
also been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by our Automatic Number Plate
Recognition cameras, which record your entry and exit times. Our records show the notice was
correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.
Regarding your appeal we have taken into account the grace period provided at the above car park and
can confirm for the above length of stay payment was required.
We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly.

RINCO

Guys, any further information I should request on the SAR?

I am shortly going to draft a defence should the claim go to court

Coupon-mad

A copy of the PDT Machine record for 17th August 2018.
Not provided

Third time in 24 hours - please read other threads like yours, like we do every day!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75447021#Comment_75447021

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75446822#Comment_75446822

RINCO

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Third time in 24 hours - please read other threads like yours, like we do every day!

Upon reflection maybe asking for PDT records is not relevant as I did not use the machine at all.
Fear not I have read various threads and defences by others yourself. This thread below is relatively similar with under 20mins of unpaid parking. The defence is very helpful.
hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5924193&highlight=grace+period+bw#topofpage

The terms and conditions signs at the particular location are impossible to read from a vehicle (font is around 1mm) and placement is approx 3 metres from point of entry you have to drive into the car park to read the signs therefore triggering ANPR.
This is the area that I am going to draft a defence based on and I'll post here shortly. I still have until 2nd of march for 'further action' against me assuming that will be court. So plenty of time.

I am worried however that the initial appeal submitted unbeknown to me by my father may have admitted too much would effect the strength of a defense in court based around signs as it does not mention anything about unclear signage:

I parked for 14 minutes my father had to get to boots to pick up medication he cannot presently walk far. I am happy to
pay for the 14 minutes but to expect over and above this does not represent the time I was in the car park I was never parked my engine was running all the time and took up no spaces

BW replied with some generic letters and a bombardment of forms and paperwork. I'm sure you've all seen these before but I've dead linked them just case these are new or bear any relevance.

hxxps://ibb.co/2kzmdys
hxxps://ibb.co/RQz0gLk

Coupon-mad

https://ibb.co/2kzmdys

https://ibb.co/RQz0gLk

Standard rubbish!

beamerguy

As coupon-mad says this is standard rubbish from a legal that
should really know better.

The Beavis was all about if the charge was fair.
However the Supreme Court said £85 was a fair charge.

I think you will agree, this is nothing whatsoever to do with your case, especially grace periods and tiny written signs

What a stupid thing for them to say "they rely on Beavis"
What do they think are actually relying upon ????

BWLegal did the same when they said they will rely upon ....
Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films

Judges whooped them many times but BWL kept on spouting the same rubbish.

Shameful company

RINCO

Hi In preparation of this case possibly going to court I have prepared a defence. I hope its not too wordy!

My question regarding whether or not my initial appeal will undermine this defence still stands I am unsure?

Initial appeal:

I parked for 14 minutes my father had to get to boots to pick up medication he cannot presently walk far. I am happy to
pay for the 14 minutes but to expect over and above this does not represent the time I was in the car park I was never parked my engine was running all the time and took up no spaces

Draft Defense:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

NCP (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


The facts are that the vehicle with registration ****** of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper was captured on an ANPR camera on the 00/00/0000 entering and exiting a private car park/land located at *********, ******. There is no evidence of the vehicle parked within a marked bay. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

According to the ANPR photographs provided by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle seems to be claimed to have been captured at the exit after a mere 13 minutes and 29 seconds on site. As stated in BPA approved operator scheme code of practice Section 13 (13.2) “allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”

The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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 within a grace period and / or obstructing access and egress. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

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. It is a fact that the vehicle never entered nor parked within a marked bay.

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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

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.