LGCP (IPC) did not address late NTK issue

gingersnapz

Thanks KeithP.


I've just replied as you have advised. Thanks for giving me the push to do so. I'm presuming the car-park is on the grounds of the hospital - it could be the case that it's adjacent to it and the PPC set up independently of the hospital trust.

waamo

gingersnapz wrote: »

Thanks KeithP.


I've just replied as you have advised. Thanks for giving me the push to do so. I'm presuming the car-park is on the grounds of the hospital - it could be the case that it's adjacent to it and the PPC set up independently of the hospital trust.

Whoever signed the contract with the ppc calls the tune. Essentially the ppc are employees who monitor the car park for their employers.

Imagine if an employer couldn't tell an employee what to do.

Redx

if there is any doubt about ownership, pay the LAND REGISTRY a small fee and find out

ie:- PALS may have said they do not manage the land , but the trust might manage it , might even own it , in which case the trust are responsible

somebody employed the parking par@sites, so find out who that is and complain, although I agree that land adjacent to a hospital may not be owned by them, so check the signage and any paperwork too

gingersnapz

This is the response I got from PALS:

"The car park you mention is external to the Trust as it is not on our grounds. Therefore we have no jurisdiction over the charges or appeals process for patients who use that car park. I have double checked with colleagues to confirm this is the case."

So I can't go any further with that line of enquiry...

Therefore, what happens now? Should I be worried? What's the worse that can happen? How can they pursue the claim despite POFA? Surely then the onus is on them to either prove that I was the driver or that, as you say, it's the same thing?

Thanks again for your help.

gingersnapz

So having read around the newbies thread and various defences that people have used, I don't know whether I would have a defence that would stand up in court. I overstayed less than 20 minutes and that's it. I was relying on the POFA no keeper liability - but that isn't really a defence. There were crappy signs in place at the car park, but only A3 in size with a lot of small print.



I'm about to cave in and pay because currently I can't see how I would win the case in court. Could I pay £60 and then see if they then chase me for the additional £40? Am I being scammed or do they have a legitimate claim?

waamo

The signage is tiny from your description. That in itself is a viable defence. Does the ppc's contract give them sufficient authority to sue? Does it contain clauses you can use?

Sounds to me like you are being scammed.

Fruitcake

You have every chance of winning in court on non PoFA compliant NTK and therefore the keeper is not liable, if only you didn't keep telling the whole world on this thread who was driving, who parked, etcetera. Unfortunately other people have quoted the posts where the driver's identity has been revealed, but you should still edit your posts to remove incriminating evidence and get into the habit of not giving away such information.

Once you have done that I suggest you contact the scammers in writing telling them to contact the driver, and only the driver, since the keeper is not liable.
Because they have failed to transfer liability to the keeper they have no prospect of success in court so should save themselves money by cancelling the PCN now, or pursue the driver instead, who will not be named.

Coupon-mad

I have now received the "Final Reminder".

Big wow. Ignore it.

gingersnapz wrote: »

I'm about to cave in and pay

DON'T BE RIDICULOUS, OF COURSE YOU ARE NOT! :eek:

If the PPC ignores POFA, but it goes to court, how do they win?

By showing that there were clear signs up and making a case that you were the driver.

Or even simpler for them, by scaring numpties into paying...!

Have they won in cases like this before?

Never heard of LGC ever trying a claim, ever.

Should I build a case in the meantime?

No need. Cross that fairly easy bridge if it comes to it. No need to hold your breath!

Should I be worried?! Whats the worse that can happen?

Nothing bad as long as you update them if you move house, to avoid a sneaky CCJ.

If you were the first person we've ever heard of to get a claim from LGCP, then you would come back here and we'd help you defend. Worst case scenario with a defended case where a person follows all our advice and appears at the hearing, well prepared, is if they lost they'd pay the PCN sum plus fifty quid court costs.

Big deal really!

gingersnapz

Wowzer - thanks Coupon Mad. Thanks for your advice - you're like one of the celebrities in the Parking Fines world (along with Redx, Bargepole etc).


Could you just advise further on the fees that the put on in the Letter Before Claim? Usually it's another £200 or something for solicitors etc. If that went to court, and you lost, would you be expected to cover those costs as well? It says that only the PCN should be claimed, so I would think that anything else is ignored?



I never knew it was so inexpensive to take someone to court. I thought it was about £180. It's a shame it isn't so as to put these companies off.



Is it likely that their signage could be considered inadequate? Or are the defences included within this forum universal? I guess what I am asking is whether there are any PPCs that use adequate signing, or are they all poor?


Thanks again for your help.

Redx

very few use adequate signage , the BEAVIS case was the exception

small claims are limited to the original invoice plus court fees (2 fees if it gets to a judge) and a small legal charge for filing the claim (legal fees)

the typical loss is normally around £180 to £200 in TOTAL for a well defended claim

these par@sites add on fees that they should not be adding on , its an abuse of process, so a well informed defendant and good judge wont allow them if objected to

the concise defence by BARGEPOLE is the starter for ten, with a few extras required

sometimes Umkomaas posts the breakdown of the charges for a loss , I suggest you read his posts (but there are a lot of them)

MCOL fees are listed on the MCOL website , its no secret


most cases are about missing and unpaid rent etc , or bad builders , or car deals that went sour , not parking invoices