NCP and BW Legal CCBC claim for being "Parked without payment of the parking charge"

railwaytaverncustomer

Hi all and thanks in advance for the great help and info on the forum.

I'll try and keep it short. Was an NCP car park in Crawley which changed to ANPR and I did not realize until I got an NtK from NCP (The new plastic yellow chain around the car park did not set off alarm bells unfortunately) . Incident date was Oct/18.
I only dropped things off at charity shop and went into bank quickly, but this time totaled to 16 minutes. over the 10 I was expecting it to take.
I know there's grace periods but because I did not buy ticket at all I believe I may be bang to rights. A bit over usual 10 mins you get I believe.

I've finally had a claim from the County Court Business Centre. Was issued on 15th Dec 2020. So 20th is date of being "served" right? So I currently have until 17th Jan 2021 to get defence ready I believe. 
I did the AoS on MCOL within time and will also be sending an SAR to NCP's DPO via email. But I'm not sure I will get anything useful back in time. I'm struggling to find SAR template letter on forum. 
I did not appeal if my memory is correct.

If there's any specific posts that would be helpful for me read and help me base a defence from I would be very grateful. 

Any help would be much appreciated. 

Fruitcake

If you didn't appeal at the time (bad move by the way and not recommended on here since the law changed in 2012) then presumably they don't know the identity of the driver. You need therefore to check if the NTK was or wasn't PoFA compliant. If it wasn't, then that will be one of your defence points. You will just have to hope the PPC doesn't read your post because you have given information about the driver's identity that could be useful to them in chopping that point down.
If you are able to edit your post then you should do so to remove information about who did what. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people as far as the law is concerned.

Use the template defence from the sticky threads, changing paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case. 
Only post here the parts you have changed.

Have a look at the grace periods in the BPA CoP that was in operation at the time of the event. Note that loading and unlading are not parking, so that part of the 16 minutes should estimated and then highlighted so the remaining time should be within the grace period allowed. The Jopson vs Homeguard case refers. 

Use all the other usual defence points such as Not the Landowner (although NCP may be so you need to check), No standing to issue charges, Inadequate signage etc.

Have a look on Google Streetview to see if the entrance signs are visible, using the time slider to checkat or either side of the date in question.

Redx

The newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum , second post has SAR information , especially the legal beagles SAR , because a SAR is not specific to parking , but is specifically about obtaining all your data

The reply does not need to arrive before the defence is submitted , but is good before the WS in several months time !!

Do not mix up the SAR requirements and the defence , it's just a case of doing it whilst fresh in your mind

The BPA 2018 CoP edition defines the grace periods allowed at the time , but as NCP car parks are normally pay and display no driver should be foolish enough to stay and not pay

Adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 of the defence template by Coupon mad and post below for critique

What defence legal points are you relying on ? Maybe the new regulations and procedures requiring distinct signage for a while ?? As explained in that BPA CoP 2018 ?

KeithP

railwaytaverncustomer said:

I've finally had a claim from the County Court Business Centre. Was issued on 15th Dec 2020. So 20th is date of being "served" right? So I currently have until 17th Jan 2021 to get defence ready I believe. 
I did the AoS on MCOL within time ...

By stating you 'did the AoS on MCOL within time', I'm going to assume you did it sometime after 18th December and before 5th January. Please confirm. Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 18th January 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

railwaytaverncustomer

Thanks for prompt replies.
AoS was submitted 28.12.20

I have actually received a reply for the SAR from NCP already. It appears I did indeed appeal. This was my poor attempt:

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require all photos taken, a clear image of the signage and an explanation of the allegation (e.g. if you have identified a wrong VRN input at a machine, say so, and explain why your Data Protection Officer has not simply rectified it, rather than trying to punish a driver for a matter where there is nothing to deter). I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP, appraising all parties of the debate where Parliament agreed: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''. Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and that 'we make it up most of the time' (BBC Watchdog). Formal note: Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service. Yours faithfully"

I'm not sure what best defence is. I was indeed unloading for half the alleged time.
The car does also have an intermittent starting issue. Could well have been fiddling with crank sensor for 10 mins.

nosferatu1001

How are you unsure? The template defence covers you. 

railwaytaverncustomer

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.       The defendant was unable to clearly view relevant signage due to a large trees branches overhanging and obscuring it. 

It should also be noted that the signs are unlit and placed in such a way that no one entering the car park in question could possibly be able to read all the small text within a reasonable time without causing a large queue of traffic behind them, which is expressly forbidden by the councils own signage outside the car park. It reads "No queuing for car park" in large easily read text. Unlike the text used on the NCP's signage. 

4.       The claimant claims that the "period of parking" was between 13:37:54 and 13:53:17. These are just the times entering and exiting the car park  and bear no relation to the actual time parked. 

A more accurate statement would be "Time spent within car park boundary".

The time inside totaled 15 minutes and 23 seconds. 

Much of this time was spent attempting to decipher the 4x A4 pages of very small text squeezed onto the car parks terms and conditions signage after entry. 

Some of this time was spent looking for an appropriate space.

Some of this time was spent unloading goods which were being dropped off at a charity shop. 

Yet more of this time was then spent loading up the vehicle and exiting the car park. 

The actual time spent parked was well under 10 minutes, which by the NCP's own guidance is well within the grace period they themselves allow. 

Coupon-mad

Your appeal was fine, not a poor attempt.  It was the MSE forum template for a while!

Your proposed defence additions look fine but I would add to #2 that you admit to being the driver.  #3 makes it obvious but in a defence you are meant to specifically 'admit or deny' allegations in a claim, (or say if there is a reason why you can't admit or deny, such as if you do not know) so play the game properly and do so in #2.

railwaytaverncustomer

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and indeed the driver, but liability is denied. 

 3a.        The car parks signs are unlit and placed in such a way that no one entering the car park in question would possibly be able to read all the small text within a reasonable amount of time without causing a large queue of traffic behind them, which is expressly forbidden by the councils own signage outside the car park. It reads "No queuing for car park" in large easily read text, unlike the text used on the NCP's signage. 

3b.       The defendant was unable to clearly view relevant signage due to a large trees branches overhanging and partially obscuring the view. See photo 1.

3c.       It should also be noted that the terms and condition signs are placed directly on the right hand side of the vehicle entrance road with no safe area in which to stand and read them from without being in the middle of the car entrance road for a prolonged period of time. This is obviously extremely unsafe and a massive deterrent to anyone who would like to read them in order to comply.

There is a short length of metal armco barrier and a large salt bin on the tiny strip of land on which the signs are placed taking up any safe space where an individual would be able to stand and read the signs safely from. See photo 2.

3d.       The defendant  denies that any contract was entered into as the relevant signage was not easily read due to being placed in a dangerous position and being partially obscured by a trees branches.

4.       The claimant claims that the "period of parking" was between 13:37:54 and 13:53:17. These are just the times the vehicle entered and exited the car park  and bear no relation to the actual time parked. 

A more accurate statement would be "Time spent within car park boundary".

The time inside totaled 15 minutes and 23 seconds. 

Some of this time was spent looking for an appropriate space. Yet more time was spent trying to read the terms and conditions signs. Then some more of this time was spent unloading goods which were being dropped off at a charity shop. Finally some more of this time was then spent loading up the vehicle and exiting the car park. 

The actual time spent parked was well under 10 minutes, which by the NCP's own guidance is well within the grace period they themselves allow. 

The car park was at some point recently changed to ANPR without me realizing. Should I mention this?

Coupon-mad

See photo 1.

Nope, NOT at defence stage!

The car park was at some point recently changed to ANPR without me realizing. Should I mention this?

If you think it's important, such as by referring to the BPA CoP (Google and read the right version from the right year, please) about changes to restrictions and the need for extra warning signs to tell people who are familiar with the site about the changes.

Redx

No evidence (exhibits) are sent with the defence , none

So no see picture 1 , just state evidence will be provided to the court at a later date