NPC issued PCNs for parking in my own parking space

Coupon-mad

Use a different email address. No-one else has reported a problem.

Post a printed, signed & dated copy 1st class signed for (last resort, but if you have to, do that tomorrow)

WASD42

Yay! Fourth email address worked!

Gmail, Yahoo and my private email have all failed, and only when I sent the email from my office address I immediately got an automatic reply.

Thanks @Coupon-mad and @KeithP!

WASD42

Hi all!

I've received a new claim on January 16th for the second batch of PCNs, dated January 5th. I've acknowledged receipt of this service and am currently drafting a defense. It will be similar to the previous claim defense, with a few modifications outlined below.

Additionally, I'm considering including a statement about the claimant's inefficient use of court resources. They could have addressed all claims simultaneously since they pertain to the same location and time frame. However, I'm unable to find a supporting reference in our forum at the moment. What are your thoughts on adding this point to the defense?

2.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The Particulars state:
2.1.  “The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle <…> In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper”.
2.2.  The location of the said “breach of contract” is unknown to the Defendant and is not showed on the photo evidence in any of the PCNs.
2.3.  The reason “All Vehicles Must Hold A Valid NPC E Permit” is not even stated on some of the PCNs.
The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fails to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".
However, it is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and was a driver of vehicle registration mark XXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

And:

3.6.  Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that the relevant Terms were clearly displayed on signage at the site of the alleged breach. This is particularly pertinent given that the location of the purported breach, as indicated in the PoC and PCN, does not correspond with the actual location of the Defendant's vehicle. Additionally:
3.6.1.    The Defendant's vehicle has been registered with the Claimant's electronic permitting system since November 2022, following the Claimant's takeover from a previous Parking Management Company. This registration is corroborated by an email exchange with NPC’s Administration Assistant dated January 2023.
3.6.2.    The photo evidence submitted by the Claimant does not demonstrates the absence of a physical permit on the vehicle's windscreen. However, the cited Terms permit the use of either a physical permit or an electronic permit (e-permit). If the Claimant's employee was able to remove the cover from the vehicle's number plate, which is beyond what would be reasonably expected, it stands to reason that they could have also checked the windscreen for a permit.
3.6.3.    There was a known defect in the Claimant’s IT system, as confirmed by the aforementioned Administration Assistant in the same email correspondence. This defect impeded the Defendant's ability to register his vehicles. Despite repeated communications, the Claimant was slow to respond and only reluctantly provided an alternative solution after many weeks of inaction, which caused most of the PCNs.

Please, not that on the PCNs, the reasons varied: "All Vehicles Must Hold A Valid NPC E Permit" and "Unauthorised Parking" (authorised by whom??).

Below is a sign attached to a nearby column:

Thanks for your advices!

Fruitcake

With regards to multiple claims for near identical circumstances, you need to look up estoppel or cause of action estoppel, and Henderson v Henderson, then include that in your defence and in every correspondence with the claimant and the court, stating all the claims should be rolled into one and not drip fed in order to make more money.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 7th February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's a little 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

With regards to multiple claims for near identical circumstances, you need to look up estoppel or cause of action estoppel, and Henderson v Henderson, then include that in your defence and in every correspondence with the claimant and the court, stating all the claims should be rolled into one and not drip fed in order to make more money.

Yep,  @WASD42 just search the forum for those words.  Other Defendants have already been there, done that, loads of times.  Copy!

If you want to force this one to a hearing then Counterclaim as well, if there are grounds.

WASD42

I'm pleased to share that both claims have now been discontinued, just days before their scheduled hearings. The first was withdrawn in December, roughly 20 days before the hearing date, and the second was dropped just five days before, shortly after I submitted my Witness Statement. I'll share my Defence and WS later for the common good.

I'm thinking about asking the court to award me preparation costs of ~£400 and planning to submit a schedule like this:

1. This Schedule is submitted in support of my application for costs according to CPR 38.6, CPR 27.14(2)(g), and CPR 46.5, following the Claimant's discontinuance of the claim.
2. I respectfully submit that the Claimant’s conduct in this matter has been unreasonable within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g). They pursued a claim with no legal merit, ignored clear evidence and correspondence, and then chose to discontinue only after I had spent significant time and effort preparing a detailed defence and witness statement. 
3. As a litigant-in-person, I claim costs for the time reasonably spent at the permitted rate of £19 per hour under CPR 46.5(4)(b).  

However, I'm a bit unsure if this could backfire somehow? Do you think it's worth trying, or better to leave it alone?

--

A huge thank you to everyone on the forum for all the help, the wealth of materials, and, most importantly, your time!

Special thanks to @Coupon-mad, @KeithP, and @Fruitcake, your guidance has been absolutely invaluable.

Coupon-mad

WASD42 said:

MARCH 2023

BACKGROUND:

Hello everyone,

I wanted to ask for some advice regarding a parking issue that I've been dealing with recently. I'll try to be short

I own a flat and a parking space in the underground parking on the same estate in London, and I also own a motorcycle and a car. I moved in August 2022 and had no issues with parking till January 2023. Back in October-November 2022, the parking management company changed from CPM to NPC, and as part of the transition NPC introduced e-permits. The transition was a mess: say, NPC requested to send them V5Cs and Word forms to register vehicles (which I did). Fast forward to January, and I receive 2 consecutive PCNs followed by another one, with the reasons ranging from "all vehicles must hold a valid e-permit" on 05.01 & 06.01 and "unauthorized parking" on 20.01 correspondingly -- all in regards to my motorcycle.

I emailed NPC the same day I received the letters (14.01), saying that "I request your assistance in ensuring that my motorcycle is properly registered and in canceling the PCNs". They replied 4 days later saying that no, it is not registered. They admitted that their system does not support multiple registered vehicles per parking space, and advised me to buy a printed "various" permit which clearly does not work for motorcycles are the permit will be just stolen the same day. So we finally agreed that they'll issue me a "visitor" permit for the car and register the motorcycle for the e-permit.

Despite all these, I've just received three "Notices of debt recovery" from DCBL which clearly means that NPC has not logged the email chain as an appeal. I ignored the letters as recommended. Could anyone recommend further steps?

Also, the motorcycle was covered and the cover was locked with a chain and a lock to the wheel; the parking warden went so far that he pulled the cover, risking overturning the bike, to see the plate number, and left it as is - uncovered - thrice! This is a different topic, but what appalling behavior this is...

-----

WASD42 said:

NOVEMBER 2023

Hey all.

Just received a Claim Form by post for the smaller PCN (160 quid + %) dated 23 November 

Hi all!

I've received a new claim for the second batch of PCNs, dated January 5th 2024. I've acknowledged receipt of this service and am currently drafting a defence. .

Additionally, I'm considering including a statement about the claimant's inefficient use of court resources.

They could have addressed all claims simultaneously since they pertain to the same location and time frame

WASD42 said:

December 2024, after a YEAR!

I'm pleased to share that both claims have now been discontinued, just days before their scheduled hearings. The first was withdrawn in December, roughly 20 days before the hearing date, and the second was dropped just five days before, shortly after I submitted my Witness Statement. I'll share my Defence and WS later for the common good.

I'm thinking about asking the court to award me preparation costs of ~£400 and planning to submit a schedule like this:

1. This Schedule is submitted in support of my application for costs according to CPR 38.6, CPR 27.14(2)(g), and CPR 46.5, following the Claimant's discontinuance of the claim.
2. I respectfully submit that the Claimant’s conduct in this matter has been unreasonable within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g). They pursued a claim with no legal merit, ignored clear evidence and correspondence, and then chose to discontinue only after I had spent significant time and effort preparing a detailed defence and witness statement. 
3. As a litigant-in-person, I claim costs for the time reasonably spent at the permitted rate of £19 per hour under CPR 46.5(4)(b).  

However, I'm a bit unsure if this could backfire somehow? Do you think it's worth trying, or better to leave it alone?

--

A huge thank you to everyone on the forum for all the help, the wealth of materials, and, most importantly, your time!

Special thanks to @Coupon-mad, @KeithP, and @Fruitcake, your guidance has been absolutely invaluable

If you try, the worst that can happen is: you might be asked to pay for an application but then you could decide not to.  So that's not a risk.

I'd add the new case, Orton v Barclaycard, as posted last week by @ChirpyChicken which is an appeal case confirming that unreasonably late Discontinuances can be held to be 'unreasonable conduct' and have caused costs on the indemnity basis.

You forgot to mention the facts that:

- these PCNs were always disputed since 2023, being incurred at your own home due to the Claimant's failure to exempt the  motorbike and when foisting the unsolicited regime on the leaseholders the Claimants failed to operate fairly. They did nothing to respect and protect the rights and easements of leaseholders; 

- they negligently split the parking charges (FROM THE SAME PERIOD) across two claims and took well over a year to drop them both, which is a clear abuse (Henderson v Henderson).

And you should conclude by saying that when this course of behaviour (spanning 2023 to 2025) is reviewed as a whole, no facts had changed and no new evidence had emerged in the year they wasted. So there is no reasonable explanation for dragging these 2 claims on and there's no doubt that the D should be entitled to wasted costs.

Coupon-mad

And yay!

ANOTHER ONE (TWO) BITES THE DUST!

But we can't count your successes x2 on the thread by @Umkomaas until you - please - kindly show us pics of both the attached NoDs.  We want to count them for the Government!

WASD42

Thanks for the advice, @Coupon-mad!

Below are the NoDs: