NCP, BW Legal & Impending LoC

1505grandad

Confused!  -  above states:-

"On a related note, my wife has been reading up (as she is the keeper and we weren’t given the chance to name me as the driver due to the errant initial letters)......."

However Defence states:-

"However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle."

Is this the first time in the thread that your wife has been mentioned and is the Defendant?

Coupon-mad

Ooer I hope that defence hasn't been sent!

There's probably an extra point about VCS v Edward and Excel v Smith that she can use.

EDIT:
I see the defence was done in September. 

I hope she DIDN'T wrongly admit to driving? That throws away a winning point and isn't true.

Surely that wasn't left saying that and she signed it under a statement of truth?

stutaylor86

We can’t recall who was driving as we generally alternate. If given the chance earlier on we would have switched it to me so that i could take care of it and it was definitively me that took the parking code from the adjacent car park machine and made payment.

As it was i added the ‘and driver’ wording from the template defence on the basis that we contacted NCP via email on receipt of the first debt collection letters, and did not dispute keeper/driver at that point. I thought having not disputed it prior to the point of defence, it would create question marks if it was not admitted at that point.

Johnersh

If there is an adverse judgment paid in time that has zero effect on ones SRA ticket. She's perfectly entitled to dispute a debt.

Is it me, or is there a good reason why the one person trained in responding to a court pleading isn't preparing the documents?

Naturally if the court are intentionally misled etc that IS a big deal, so make sure the paperwork is wholly accurate. That extends to correcting any error once identified.

If it's the case that payment went to the wrong operator, then I would have probably admitted the primary debt but disputed all the bolt ons if it were me (unless the signage really is disastrously confusing). That said, I've never been to the site and the PPC certainly has an obligation to set out the terms clearly. 

Coupon-mad

No, she could have added any facts - new stuff, whatever - in the defence and the Template only says to add 'and driver' if the D knows that's true.

Being the keeper, not driver, in this defence, would almost certainly have been a nailed on winning point, because NCP usually don't use POFA wording.

This is, I think, the first time we heard that the Defendant wasn't you and she may not have been driving. If you'd told us that in September, we'd have written her a defence point using non-POFA cases arguing lack of keeper liability.

Doesn't matter now though, because your wife's signed defence admits to driving, so she is stuck with that stance and the POFA protection she probably had as keeper, has gone.

Having said that, on the positive side, most cases are won here anyway, usually on non-prominent terms or unfairness under the CRA 2015.

By the way I've even known a retired Judge defend a parking case.  I suspect he lost, because his defence was a bit over-excited and scattergun and he never told us the outcome.  But the point is that he was also a solicitor.  You are allowed to defend a civil claim and it can't affect her job because she'd pay it if she lost.

stutaylor86

Ok thank you and understood on the keeper/driver issue, I guess we are where we are now and lesson learned - my concern with correcting it at this point is that it would equally risk being misleading, as we genuinely don’t know who was driving, which is also partly why we didn’t want to deny it initially.

In terms of the signage, it is certainly my view that the below images from the site are confusing and highly likely to result in the issue we have encountered. Whether this is enough to win the case I suppose we will find out next year, unless BWL withdraw ahead of that, which i am still hoping they will given the recent NCP examples on other threads where they have.

Coupon-mad

The Template Defence says:

...However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.
^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you weredriving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.
OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.
OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

She was not told to 'deny' driving. We'd never do that if someone doesn't recall either way.

 She was meant to do the middle one of those options, and we should have discussed this with you and she could have used cases to make her 'no keeper liability' argument.

Anyway as you say, we are where we are and no-one will suggest she tries to U turn on that.

What's her main point and why was the driver unable to pay? Oh hang on...

EDIT: I see that the facts are these:

Having thought this has gone away and in going back over receipts etc to try and understand what NCP’s problem is, I’ve realised what has happened. Essentially we parked in a large NCP street level car park, walked directly onto the street and i took the parking app code off the first sign we walked past. I now realise that that code was for a different car par, run by SIP, that was directly adjacent but basically impossible to distinguish from the street as it was only one row of cars deep and directly opposite the last row in the NCP car park, separated only by a thin yellow rail at licence plate height (thus hidden by cars!).

So that goes into the WS before the hearing and unclear signs/poor delineation between the two car parks is her main point to demonstrate with maps/photos. That's based on unfair terms/lack of prominence of NCP's consumer notices (CRA 2015 breach).

The facts usually prevail and yes, it might well get discontinued later.

Johnersh

So an NCP sign above the SIP machine? I agree that's confusing. Where's the NCP machine it will be suggested that you should've used or was that solely pay by app?

stutaylor86

Thank you both, the main point was intended to be about the poor/confusing signage and token delineation. Also just to be clear on the keeper/driver issue, I recognise that is wholly our muck up, no criticism of the template defence or amazing help given on this forum intended at all, sorry if it came across that way.

I don’t know where the NCP machines are but we didn’t see any based on where we were parked before heading to that pedestrian exit and seeing the NCP pay here sign and SIP machine beneath it. However I will revisit the site to take photos based on where we were parked and the relative location of the NCP machines (if there were any and it isn’t app only). I need new photos anyway that reflect the conditions, as i do recall it was chucking it down with rain and we were rushing, which likely contributed to the confusion.