NCP County Court Claim - PCN

roland_

Hi,


I have been receiving letters from the NCP as apparently I parked about 10 minutes over the ticket time. I have been ignoring these, and now have a county court letter from BW Legal.


I have never confirmed any details or responded to the NCP and obviously would contest/dispute this. Is there any advice on what I should do next?


Thank you

Redx

yes

post the DATE OF ISSUE on your N1 form

then read the NEWBIES THREAD FAQ post #2 , third thread down from the top of this forum, and start doing the AOS online , then start drafting your DEFENCE and post it below when its ready for critique

confirm you have done the AOS online as well as your DATE OF ISSUE in your next reply

and email a SAR to the DPO at NCP (asap) to get all their data they have on you and your vehicle


read a dozen or so similar recent court case threads on here so you get the gist

roland_

Thanks - date of issue - 13 Mar 2019


I started to progress the AOS online but I cannot do anything - "A bar has been put in place on this claim. You cannot respond to the claim at this time."


Edit: SAR also logged with NCP

KeithP

roland_ wrote: »

Thanks - date of issue - 13 Mar 2019

I would suggest that you need to better understand why "A bar has been put in place on this claim".

Perhaps you should ring the CCBC to find out why that might be.
There's a phone number on your Claim Form.


That aside...

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th March, you have until Monday 1st April to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence but best not leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

roland_

KeithP wrote: »

I would suggest that you need to better understand why "A bar has been put in place on this claim".

Perhaps you should ring the CCBC to find out why that might be.
There's a phone number on your Claim Form.

I will call tomorrow to find out. I would assume that the days the bar is put in place do not count towards the days I have to produce a defence.



So the car park recently added a machine where you enter your reg plate and it displays an amount. Unknowing to me (and the instructions were not clear), you have to select the hours you have stayed. My understanding is that as you do not take a ticket upon entry of the car park, the cameras would pick up your reg plate and assign your time to pay upon the entry of the reg number in the machine. Unsure of how much this can be added to a defence, if at all. Anyway, here is my first draft of a defence below - feedback very much appreciated.






________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, 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.

4. 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.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage 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.

6. 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 £67.36, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

7. The Defendant never received the Notice to Keeper letter in-line with POFA at Section 4, (9) which resulted in no chance to appeal or contact the Claimant.

8. These unwarranted demands for enormous sums, added to the uncertainty of the alleged/unknown contravention have caused distress. Even now when defending this claim the Defendant has no idea what the Claimant is alleging, which could be any one of:
- not paying at all, yet they have supplied no evidence and the Defendant cannot possibly recall the day, but does not make a habit of not paying, or
- making a partial payment, such as if a coin slipped through unrecorded, or
- a parking ticket machine failure
- putting the wrong VRN into the machine
- failure of their own systems to record the VRN in full and/or match any payment made to the data they held in regards to length of stay on the property
9. 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 the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

roland_ wrote: »

I would assume that the days the bar is put in place do not count towards the days I have to produce a defence.

I certainly would not be making that assumption at this stage.

There is nothing stopping you producing a Defence.
It is just that without having done the AoS, your Defence becomes due much earlier - on Monday 1st April.

roland_

Defence draft posted above. I will call about the bar tomorrow


Thanks

Coupon-mad

Your defence needs the usual point about no landowner authority, as seen in other defences.

Have they really ONLY added £67 to the £100 (bottom right of the claim?). More likely they are demanding a total of more than £200 in my experience. The whole point is to make it clear hey are trying double recovery.

You should certainly add near the start, that the 'pay on exit' system is unfair and not fit for purpose. A reasonable and circumspect driver would expect the data from the ANPR camera to link to the machine and tell you how much to pay, not lie about it by just displaying an amount that drivers then pay in good faith. Given the fact that the Claimant has the time of arrival in their system, there can be no excuse for omitting this from the system at the point of exit and setting drivers up for a fall and £100 charge.

KeithP

Roland, what reason did the CCBC give for the bar?

roland_

Hi all, apologies for the delay in update


The reason for the bar was a systems issue, meaning the document wasn't posted in the correct time. Either way, I emailed my AOS, and have email confirmation that I need to submit my defence by 15/04.


I will work on it this weekend and post the updated version based on the feedback above.


My SAR from NCP has not been responded to, and I have screenprinted a chat conversation with them telling me their is no date I can expect this by. Would it be a good idea to include this in my defence, given they are being unhelpful and not providing my information ahead of the claim?


Thanks all

Le_Kirk

They have 30 days to respond to a SAR therefore if they are over that date and cannot tell you when and/or are being obstructive, yes to adding it to defence but also a complaint to ICO.