NCP claim - HELP

Cobbler08

Ok thank you both. Is the grace period a defence in my case though? As the driver (who wasn't me) parked, went into a shop to collect an item, then got back into the car and left (they tell me they believe it was 10 minutes or less but can't guarantee it)
Looking at the BPA website, it seems that the grace period refers to either a) someone not parking i.e. deciding whether they want to park or not) or b) has entered the contract, i.e. paid for 1hr, returns to car after 1hr then is allowed 10 minutes grace period to leave the car park. 

Coupon-mad

Right...and how do 2 images from ANPR cameras at the entrance, show them what she did?

Cobbler08

Fair point. OK, so we're not going to admit that she parked.... unless the Judge asks? 

2.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.   The Defendant was not the driver and firstly heard about the parking charge by post, some weeks later.  The Defendant felt harassed by a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letter. The Defendant cannot be held liable under any applicable law, if the Claimant has not complied with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

3.  The driver entered XXXXXXXX retail car park on [date] for a short period believed to be less than ten minutes. The driver did not accept the contract and believes that they were in the area for no longer than ten minutes; therefore, within the grace period stated in the BPA Code of Practice 2018.

Coupon-mad

You were not the driver so your defence looks fine like that.  Your account is that you are not liable because NCP (probably) didn't comply with the POFA 2012 and even if they are able to prove that they did (and they are put to strict proof of full compliance with schedule 4) then the evidence NCP has presented shows the driver left within minutes.

Cobbler08

Great, thank you! I'll sign and submit it tomorrow. 
In the scenario they did comply with POFA, and if they produce evidence that the driver did take slightly longer than ten minutes - then should my defence then be 'abuse of process' to try and get the naughty £60 knocked off?

KeithP

Cobbler08 said:

3.  The driver entered XXXXXXXX retail car park on [date] for a short period believed to be less than ten minutes. The driver did not accept the contract and believes that they were in the area for no longer than ten minutes; therefore, within the grace period stated in the BPA Code of Practice 2018.

The first sentence there should be truncated - to end after the word 'period'. The rest is stated in the next sentence.

Le_Kirk

Cobbler08 said:

Great, thank you! I'll sign and submit it tomorrow. 
In the scenario they did comply with POFA, and if they produce evidence that the driver did take slightly longer than ten minutes - then should my defence then be 'abuse of process' to try and get the naughty £60 knocked off?

If you are using the standard defence template that will be in there, however it is not a defence per se.  It is used to, as you say, "get the naughty £60 knocked off."  Your defence will be other technical and legal arguments such as that which you have put forward.

Cobbler08

Hi all, just a quick update. So the court has acknowledged receipt of my defence.
In the last day or two, I've received the SAR from NCP. It turns out that the driver was in the car park for 16 minutes. However, they didn't send out the first letter until 15 days after the incident, so they've failed POFA right?

Umkomaas

However, they didn't send out the first letter until 15 days after the incident, so they've failed POFA right? 

Sounds like. Great if you were definitely (and provably) not the driver on the day. 

Le_Kirk

Cobbler08 said:

Hi all, just a quick update. So the court has acknowledged receipt of my defence.
In the last day or two, I've received the SAR from NCP. It turns out that the driver was in the car park for 16 minutes. However, they didn't send out the first letter until 15 days after the incident, so they've failed POFA right?

They have failed insofar as they cannot now hold the keeper liable for the matter but caution as posted by @Umkomaas.