BW Legal chasing NTC PCN. Ultimately driver's fault - do they have any defence or should they pay?

thanksinadvance123

Hi guys,

Sorry in advance for starting a new thread, however I am struggling to find information to help my specific situation and wondered whether anyone may be able to offer any advice on what steps I should take next.

Around 18 months ago, I was issued a Parking Charge Notice by NTC as the driver of my vehicle had parked in a pay and display to help a friend unload equipment into a University, but did not buy a ticket. The machine was (and still is) coins only (despite having a card reader built in), and having no coins on their person, they decided to risk not paying. Despite only being parked for no longer than 20 minutes, they were unlucky and got hit with a £60 fine, up to £100 if not paid within 14 days. 

We both chose to ignore the fine, and around a month later (between the 28-56 day period), an NTK was sent to me. All the information matches the original ticket, and includes 2 photos of the front and back of my car. The lighting is quite dim but it does show that there is no ticket obviously present in the windscreen.

We continued to ignore, and around two months later I received a letter from BW Legal chasing the fine, with their standard addition of £60 added on to total £160.

Continued to ignore, another 14 months goes by with no contact, then a few days ago I receive another letter from BW Legal to my new address chasing the fine again. This time, they have made an offer of a discount off the £160 total, and stated 'contact us by ........ to discuss payment of ..... before we recommend to our client that they consider legal proceedings, which would mean you would receive a formal letter of claim'.

From my research, I have ascertained that this is not yet an LBC, and I know your advice is usually to continue ignoring until one is received. However, I know I have made a mistake by ignoring the letters from the start, and not going through the appeals stage etc. 

So, my question is, if this was to get to the stage that a claim is made, do we really think I have much of a defence in court? Considering that ultimately this was quite clearly a mistake on the driver's part. I have returned to the area to check signage, which tbh, is quite clear, with multiple signs around the car park, and text that is quite legible. I think some of the signs may have changed since the contravention, but I have no proof of what was there at that time. There is no obvious sign at the entrance of the carpark, but once in a space, they are abundant. The machine only accepting coins was what led to the driver not paying the fee, but as far as I am aware, it was functioning. 

I detest these companies and the way they do business. The fine is completely disproportionate to the original parking charge, and I really do not want to help fund them. HOWEVER - I have to admit their discount offer has really got me considering paying at this point. I have spent hours researching and stressing over this, and am tempted to cut my losses. If anyone believes I may have a defence even in this case, I will consider holding out to see if they make a claim.

If anyone can advise on this, and if there is anything else I should do in the meantime (I am thinking I should request an SAR? Anything in particular I should request as part of this?), your help is greatly appreciated. I have around 20 days to accept their offer. I have copies of all mail that I have received - if anyone needs to see any of it, let me know and I will scan.

Thank you.

KeithP

Can we assume that NTC = Norwich Traffic Control?

Is their Notice to Keeper capable of transferring any driver's liability to the keeper?
If not, and as they don't know who was driving, there is no problem.

Coupon-mad

Unloading isn't parking. Appeal 'Case law' confirms this is a solid defence.

f anyone believes I may have a defence even in this case, I will consider holding out to see if they make a claim.

Good. That's two defence points we've given you and that's before we even get into what the DLUHC's draft Impact Assessment has revealed about the extortionate nature of the added fees.

Do not pay.

YankeeBrit

thanksinadvance123 said:

...help a friend unload equipment into a University, but did not buy a ticket.

Have read of this and decide whether "helping your friend to unload" is actually parking:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ezhkj6epu66l1r/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?dl=0

thanksinadvance123

Thanks for this, had not considered these grounds. Difficult one, as it's hard to state as a fact exactly how long constitutes 'parking'. In my case, I feel I have less of an argument due to it not being a residence I own, and the time period being longer than stipulated in the above example. On the PCN, the 'First seen at' box simply reads N/A, suggesting they have no proof how long I was there. Something to think about, thanks a lot for your response.

thanksinadvance123

Sorry Coupon-mad and KiethP, I hadn't seen your posts before writing my response to YankeeBrit. 

KeithP said:

Can we assume that NTC = Norwich Traffic Control?

Is their Notice to Keeper capable of transferring any driver's liability to the keeper?
If not, and as they don't know who was driving, there is no problem.

Yes, Norwich Traffic Control. I have no idea about transferring the driver's liability to the keeper.. would it stipulate this on the NTK?

Coupon-mad said:

Unloading isn't parking. Appeal 'Case law' confirms this is a solid defence.

f anyone believes I may have a defence even in this case, I will consider holding out to see if they make a claim.

Good. That's two defence points we've given you and that's before we even get into what the DLUHC's draft Impact Assessment has revealed about the extortionate nature of the added fees.

Do not pay.

Does the term 'unloading' still apply if the driver is in a parking space, in a car park? Even if only for a short while?

YankeeBrit

BTW, it is not a "fine" and you should never call it such. It is nothing more than a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract from an unregulated private parking company. You won't find the word "fine" anywhere in any of the paperwork.

If there is no evidence in their paperwork of how long you were at the location "unloading" then you have an excellent argument to counter their attempt to scam you out of your money. Are there photos of the vehicle either entering the car park or were any photos taken by one of their operatives?

thanksinadvance123

Hi YankeeBrit , ah yes, thanks for the reminder!

The only 2 photos included on the NTK are of the car stationary, in the parking space - one from in front, one from behind. Assumably taken by their operative. No photos of the car entering or leaving the carpark. Would it be worth requesting an SAR to ensure they do not have these, or would this be better to do later on?

YankeeBrit

Are the photos time-stamped?

thanksinadvance123 said:

I have no idea about transferring the driver's liability to the keeper.. would it stipulate this on the NTK?

Does the term 'unloading' still apply if the driver is in a parking space, in a car park? Even if only for a short while?

Does the PCN/NtK mention anything about PoFA 2012? If so, does the wording conform to the requirements of the Act? If you are unsure, post a suitably redacted picture of the PCN/NtK, front and back. Leave in all the dates. We can then see if it is PoFA compliant.

"Loading" or "unloading" is what it says on the tin. If, for example, you had to deliver something to the university and the location where you stopped in order to be able to unload whatever it was you were delivering was the car park, then why do you think the term wouldn't apply?

thanksinadvance123

Yes, the photos are time stamped - the two photos are taken 14 seconds apart, so this seems to be all the evidence they have of the length of stay.

I see nothing about PoFA on the NtK or PCN. I have tried to upload links to check but the forum will not let me post - I have double checked, and no mention of PoFA anywhere.

I suppose the driver could have stopped on the side of the road to unload, as opposed to driving in the car park. But not knowing where they were loading to exactly, the car park would still seem like a sensible place to stop. I'm playing devil's advocate against myself....

Coupon-mad

You don't need to play Devil's advocate.

This case isn't a dilemma; you'd win and there's no risk as long as you don't move address and let letters (and a potential court claim) go to an old one!

You have a really strong defence including another point you just revealed:

 "the photos are time stamped - the two photos are taken 14 seconds apart,"