Help Please Advice: NCP ANPR

Coupon-mad

They are both NCP car parks and i believe not lost any money as i normally use the facility at unsociable hours midnight onwards and leave after less than 2 hours. I am the only 1 in the car park its not like they can justify such a high amount of money for their losses,

Stop thinking about 'no loss'. That is not an argument that has legs.

This is what you need to say to POPLA (in addition to adding the generic templates like 'no landowner authority'):

- Attending an establishment which offers free 2 hour car parking at an NCP car park.
- The establishment has 2 NCP car park close by to it. One being 500 Yards away and other being 200 yards away.
- The driver did not see the sign due to parking mostly at night time.
- The driver thought the car park nearer to the establishment was the valid car park.
- As normal the driver would validate the vehicle as he entered the establishment using the dedicated electronic device and would receive the all clear.
- 15-17 Days Later the keeper received several PCN letters from NCP.

Your main jobs for making a compelling POPLA appeal will be to:

- show photos of the car park and night, with the terms completely unreadable and the only thing that can be made out is the fact it's an NCP car park

- take a video to show how close it is to the establishment offering free parking at the NCP car park

- prove you were offered free parking at 'the' NCP car park (get an email)

- go on Google Aerial maps and show POPLA the NCP car park is adjacent to the establishment and NCP have failed to make it clear to people visiting that establishment, which car park is which when entering into some sort of agreement to allow free parking by patrons.

- state that as NCP issued the PCNs so late, there was no way to know this was the 'wrong car park' until several PCNs arrived, over 2 weeks later.

PCNotice

Good Evening Everyone,

Apologies for not being able to respond to this thread for a long time. Juggling 2 new born babies turns out to be really really hard
Anyway, I have created a popla appeal template based on what Coupon-mad has advised.
I am still in the process of fighting these PCN's i have received, ticking them off 1 by 1.
3 Popla appeals currently in progress
I am now on my fourth PCN appeal at Popla stage.
I was hoping to get all 7 of the PCN's done and completed today.

The problem that i have now is that NCP has provided me the exact same POPLA code with a different PCN. The 3rd PCN response has the exact same POPLA code as the 4th one.

Trying to start a new appeal at POPLA gives me : Sorry the verification code you have entered is used, you cannot reuse this code. Please use the track appeal page to login and view the appeal status.

Please advice.

Kind Regards To all.

Coupon-mad

The problem that i have now is that NCP has provided me the exact same POPLA code with a different PCN. The 3rd PCN response has the exact same POPLA code as the 4th one.

This is a job for Steve Clark of the BPA, email him a complaint about this:

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

PCNotice

Thanks for the reply coupon-mad,

*Update* good news is that all 3 POPLA appleas i have sent has now been approved:
NCP have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.
Yours sincerely
POPLA Team

I still have 4 more to send to popla, but i cant send the 4th one because it has the same popla code as the third.

I will email the person above, but is it also worth just contacting ncp for a new popla code for the 4th PCN because the messed up?

Coupon-mad

No - they DO NOT deserve that respect - dob them in.

PCNotice

*Update* 5/17/2019

Thank you all. 6/7 Popla appeals has been successful.

However for some reason POPLA has said the 1st ever PCN i sent was not received by them even due to a system error. They have reinstated it yesterday but now it has NCP's Evidence pack attached to it. They have requested me to respond within 7 days with my comments.
I tried to open the evidence pack, NCP apparently made an error uploading it, i had to ask for it directly from POPLA.
I really detest NCP, and after reading their evidence pack: hxxps://ufile.io/q6p592yp
I don't understand how all 6 other PCN's with literally the same circumstances but just different time and date have not been contested by them and approved by POPLA.
But this 1st ever PCN now requires me to comment on their ridiculous evidence pack.

I would appreciate it if you all could please have a quick look at the evidence pack as im trying to type up a professional response to it. They have not written a rebuttal for every single one of my points - 4 Points including planning permission for their signage, ANPR used for, no evidence of period parked, non compliance of image, has not been written about. Dont they have too? inorder to win? And i just have to prove 1 point inorder for it to be approved?

- It says they have clear signage in place at the car park which is false.
- Their Signs were not even approved by crawley borough council
- The ANPR signage did not tell me what they will use the data captured for.
- They say NCP ltd is the leaseholder for crawley cross key car park does this mean they have land owner authority to operate at the site?
- They have copy and pasted and quoted their T&Cs on the document but in person, morning or evening its unreadable.
- The several photo evidence they have attached is clearly when the site was first built and not at the time of the PCN being sent out. Even then its still very misleading.
- Their night time photos were clearly taken with a flashlight directly on each signage. When in reality when entering a car park i should have no doubt that it is the correct car park.

Please help, i really do struggle forming a coherent and well structured reply to things.

Kind Regards,

MistyZ

PCNotice wrote: »

- It says they have clear signage in place at the car park which is false.
- Their Signs were not even approved by crawley borough council
- The ANPR signage did not tell me what they will use the data captured for.
- They say NCP ltd is the leaseholder for crawley cross key car park does this mean they have land owner authority to operate at the site?
- They have copy and pasted and quoted their T&S on the document but in person, morning or evening its unreadable.
- The several photo evidence they have attached is clearly when the site was first built and not at the time of the PCN being sent out. Even then its still very misleading.
- Their night time photos were clearly taken with a flashlight directly on each signage. When in reality when entering a car park i should have no doubt that it is the correct car park.

I'd combine some of the signage points e.g. 'NCP' (that's 2 characters less than 'they'!) claim signage is clear yet their photos obviously use flash. In reality the signs are unlit & illegible after dark which is when the car was parked.'

What is 'T&S'? Do you mean Terms and Conditions (T&Cs)? I'd put that next I think & briefly reiterate why it's unreadable as you did in your POPLA appeal, assuming you covered that.

I'm not sure what is meant by NCP being a 'leaseholder' but others will know I'm sure. If it means they are claiming they operate under contract that's just an assertion, not evidence. Did they include a copy of the contract? Seems to me you might get 'em on that by stating 'NCP have not provided evidence that they have a valid contract to operate at this car park. Therefore I conclude that they do not have authority to do so'.

MistyZ

Also .... do you think there was a winning point in your other POPLA appeals that persuaded ECP not to contest? Non-compliance with POFA perhaps ... ? If there was something which they did not contest with evidence then I believe you can comment on that omission by saying 'ECP have not contested my assertion that blah blah, therefore I conclude that .... '.

MistyZ

Me again. Still pondering this leaseholder thing in case it means they actually lease the land.

Their Annual Report for 2016 boasts that they hold 'a large number of long-term lease contracts'. I would think this means they just have more of a foothold than a simpler contract provides but I'm not sure, could mean that the landowner authority point doesn't apply. Do any of you experienced regulars know?

In any case, it won't take many characters to state that they have not provided evidence that they have a valid contract etc.

Umkomaas

NCP are one of the few PPCs who do own/lease some land on which they operate - but not in every case.

You could phone the local council and ask who pays the non domestic rates on the property - that will give you a clearer picture as to NCP’s position at this car park.