Napier parking (via BW Legal) fixed charge notice for transfer of ticket

No1knows

In July last year i parked at a Napier managed parking in Waterlooville. I was offered, accepted and displayed a valid parking ticket. Ticket machine does not require VRN. 
In August i received a FCN (NTK) from Napier for transferring a ticket from another vehicle, which according to the signs is not allowed. Admittingly, i was not aware of this and had a valid ticket for the duration of my stay in the car park. Why be penalised for making use of "free" parking? I responded to the FCN, not stating who the driver was and asked for photographic evidence of my vehicle, as the FCN only had a picture of another car. Napier responded rejecting appeal and no photos were provided. A few demand letters followed from Napier, then BW Legal and LC on 16/03/ 2022.
On 24/03, using the templates provided here, I send SAR to Napier and email to BW legal, requesting for the process to be put on hold.

8/04 Napier provided SAR stating that "PDT machine records... has not been enclosed with our response as this information does not relate to your personal data"
They also did not provide any of their other correspondence between us.

On 9/04 i received a response from BW Legal that in order to deal with my query they need me to confirm my full name, address, BW Legal reference and email address. All this was provided in the request to put the process on hold. Also, they have been sending me emails, so why need to confirm details now?

Should i again request all correspondence and PDT machine records on which Napier intends to rely in court and confirm my details to BW Legal?   

Coupon-mad

Confirm your details (yes, you must) and demand BW Legal provide their client's documentary evidence of the allegation 'transferred ticket'.  

Add that this is evidence required under 5.2 of the pre-action protocol for debt claims and you expect the document and/or photographic evidence within 30 days.

KeithP

No1knows said:

A few demand letters followed from Napier, then BW Legal and LC on 16/03/ 2022.

Who are LC?

No1knows

KeithP said:

No1knows said:

A few demand letters followed from Napier, then BW Legal and LC on 16/03/ 2022.

Who are LC?

Letter of Claim from BW Legal

No1knows

So, below is the email response to BW Legal. As they have been included in Napier's response as party who deals with debt recovery, is it necessary to request the info from Napier again?

Good afternoon,

Further to the email below, dated 24 March 2022, and your request to confirm details, please be advised of the following:

BW Legal Reference: xxxx

Full Name: xxxx

First line of your address: xxx

Postcode: xxx

This my authorised email address xxx and i wish that it is used for correspondence purposes.  

Additionally, on 24 March 2022, i sent your client SAR request to provide all the documentary evidence relating to the allegation of the "transferred" ticket, which your client has failed to provide stating that "this has not been enclosed with our response as this information does not relate to your personal data".

Your client further listed you as a third party, who provide debt recovery, tracing and litigation services and with whom my data has been shared.

Respectively, and according to 5.2 of the pre-action protocol for debt claims 

"5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must – 

(a) provide the document or information; or 

(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request."

Your client has not done either.  To be clear, I require the following:

·       All documentary and/or photographic evidence relating to the allegation of the "transferred" ticket your client will reply in court on;

·       All letters and emails sent/received including appeal correspondence; and

·       The PDT machine records for the Pay and Display machine at Waterlooville Central Car Park, Waterlooville (the site in question) and payments made.

Please can you provide your client's documents and/or photographic evidence within 30 days.

D_P_Dance

It may well be that their alleged breach may relate to an unfair term in a consumer contract under the CRA 2015, whatever their signs may say, especially if you owned both cars.  Have you complained to your MP?

No1knows

D_P_Dance said:

It may well be that their alleged breach may relate to an unfair term in a consumer contract under the CRA 2015, whatever their signs may say, especially if you owned both cars.  Have you complained to your MP?

Thank you. I have just looked at other posts on how to do it and will most certainly do.

patient_dream

Napier have agreed you paid because you have been accused of transfering the ticket ?

How can they issue a NTK when they know you paid ??

They need to provide proof and ..... they need to persue the VRN of the person who did not pay .... NOT YOU

Napier must obey the code of practice regarding signs and there is nothing in the code that refers to giving the ticket to another. Infact there is no law that BWLegal can rely on

Napier have provided an unfair contract. There are set down reasons to issue a parking charge and passing a ticket to another is not one of them

In other words, Napier make it up as they go along

We know that BWL attempt to bring crap claims to court and we also know that BWL get spanked by the judges

YOU PAID .... end of story and you have every reason to counterclaim against BWLegal/Napier

fisherjim

patient_dream said:

Napier have agreed you paid because you have been accused of transfering the ticket ?

How can they issue a NTK when they know you paid ??

They need to provide proof and ..... they need to persue the VRN of the person who did not pay .... NOT YOU

Napier must obey the code of practice regarding signs and there is nothing in the code that refers to giving the ticket to another. Infact there is no law that BWLegal can rely on

Napier have provided an unfair contract. There are set down reasons to issue a parking charge and passing a ticket to another is not one of them

In other words, Napier make it up as they go along

We know that BWL attempt to bring crap claims to court and we also know that BWL get spanked by the judges

YOU PAID .... end of story and you have every reason to counterclaim against BWLegal/Napier

Unless the OP has admitted to Napier that they did not pay surely this will be like a leaving site claim with no evidence to support; no VRN no photos only a weasel in a huts word.

Umkomaas

Napier have agreed you paid because you have been accused of transfering the ticket ?

How can they issue a NTK when they know you paid ??

They need to provide proof and ..... they need to persue the VRN of the person who did not pay 

My reading of this is that the OP accepted a ticket from another motorist leaving the car park.  If the OP did not pay for the ticket, what use are the PDT records?  Surely all they will do is confirm that the OP didn't pay - not what they want!

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

Napier have agreed you paid because you have been accused of transfering the ticket ?

How can they issue a NTK when they know you paid ??

They need to provide proof and ..... they need to persue the VRN of the person who did not pay 

My reading of this is that the OP accepted a ticket from another motorist leaving the car park.  If the OP did not pay for the ticket, what use are the PDT records?  Surely all they will do is confirm that the OP didn't pay - not what they want!

Yes, bit confusing as the OP says "and had a valid ticket for the duration of my stay in the car park"

Either way, if no entry of a VRN was required in the pay machine how can they match this up especially as they provided a picture of another car ?