NCP Fine - BW Legal Letter of Claim

Coupon-mad

You need to add a section on the facts as you told us, but don't say you are happy to pay and don't call 13 minutes 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

Also I see nothing about the usual point, no landowner authority. Add that in - see other defences for it.

Umkomaas

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.

You can't, as the keeper, now have any protection from PoFA. They're coming after the driver, conveniently identified by you.

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

And your statement above is contradictory. 'I parked for ...', followed one sentence later by 'I was never parked my engine was running all the time and took up no spaces'.

RINCO

FYI the initial appeal was sent shortly after the PCN was received. It was not submitted by myself but by my father I didn’t realise this had been done until it came back in the SAR!!

I will revise the defence based off of your feedback, thanks


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

RINCO

Hi See an updated defence below. Added section on the events occurred.
Removed section about NTK costs. would I be allowed to refuse that the initial appeal admitting I was the driver was sent by me (Which it wasn't) would this stand?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Also I see nothing about the usual point, no landowner authority. Add that in - see other defences for it.

On the car park signs it says "This land is private property managed by NCP Limited with the authority of the land owner by parking in this car park you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions" - I'm assuming this is stating their authority? Or no?

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 *********, ******. The vehicle entered the carpark with intent to park in order to meet a elderly relative in the town centre who was collecting medication. Instead, the relative was already at the car park and therefore it was decided after trying to consult the terms and conditions of the car park in order to deduce the grace period. The vehicle had not stayed for enough time in order to incur a PCN and left.


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. There is no clear mention of a grace period or its duration. 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.

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.

Coupon-mad

No, that's not evidence of landowner authority. Every defence includes this, no need to think your case is different.

would I be allowed to refuse that the initial appeal admitting I was the driver was sent by me (Which it wasn't) would this stand?

Yes you could state that, but 'refuse the initial appeal' makes no sense! You mean 'distance yourself from the initial appeal'?

RINCO

Thanks Coupon Mad. Added Landowner authority and statement regarding the initial appeal trying to distance myself from it as far as possible.
I have made reference to the email address used to make the appeal as it clearly is a different name and different to the email used to submit the SAR. Contact phone number given is also not my own although no obvious way to prove this so didn't deem it worth mentioning.

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 *********, ******. The vehicle entered the carpark with intent to park in order to meet a elderly relative in the town centre who was collecting medication. Instead, the relative was already at the car park and therefore it was decided after trying to consult the terms and conditions of the car park in order to deduce the grace period. The vehicle had not stayed for enough time in order to incur a PCN and left.

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. There is no clear mention of a grace period duration. 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.

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 in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this includes litigation against patrons who stay less than 30 minutes.

With regards to an appeal submitted on 00st August 2018 this was not an accurate statement of events. The details within the appeal were not submitted by the defendant as can be seen by viewing the email address attached to the appeal.


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.

Le_Kirk

Instead, the relative was already at the car park and therefore it was decided after trying to consult the terms and conditions of the car park in order to deduce the grace period.

This just seems to stop and perhaps you were trying to say: -

Instead, the relative was already at the car park and therefore it was decided to leave after trying to consult the terms and conditions of the car park in order to deduce the grace period.

Also, look at the NEWBIE section post # 2 and some of the concise defences posted by Bargepole and see if you can put your defence into that format, i.e. numbered and with a statement of truth at the end.

RINCO

Thanks Le_Kirk.

Amended the first statement that reads a lot better. The defence is in numbered order on my word processor but it does not copy thru onto here. I have added statement of truth.

I have been to the car park and collected photos of the signs including terms and conditions.

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 *********, ******. The vehicle entered the carpark with intent to park in order to meet a elderly relative in the town centre who was collecting medication. Instead, the relative was already at the car park and therefore it was decided to leave after trying to consult the terms and conditions of the car park in order to deduce the grace period. It was thought that vehicle had not stayed for enough time in order to incur a PCN and left.

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. There is no clear mention of a grace period duration. 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.

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 in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this includes litigation against patrons who stay less than 30 minutes.

With regards to an appeal submitted on 31st August 2018 this was not an accurate statement of events. The details within the appeal were not submitted by the defendant as can be seen by viewing the email address attached to the appeal.


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.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

RINCO

Hi,

Update on this. I have received county court claim paperwork from Northampton issue dated 13th March. I have Acknowledged service today 29th March.

I am following the steps in this post
hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5546325

I now have a further 14 days to submit my defense however its already written obviously. Here is the final draft I will post this to the court recorded on Monday. It is numbered just on my word processor it doesn't copy over.

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 *********, ******. The vehicle entered the carpark with intent to park in order to meet a elderly relative in the town centre who was collecting medication. Instead, the relative was already at the car park and therefore it was decided to leave after trying to consult the terms and conditions of the car park in order to deduce the grace period. It was thought that vehicle had not stayed for enough time in order to incur a PCN and left.

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. There is no clear mention of a grace period duration. 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.

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 in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this includes litigation against patrons who stay less than 30 minutes.

With regards to an appeal submitted on 31st August 2018 this was not an accurate statement of events. The details within the appeal were not submitted by the defendant as can be seen by viewing the email address attached to the appeal.


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.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

1505grandad

You have put "witness statement" on bottom instead of Defence