IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

NCP "Parking Charge Notice" Fine - outside of car park??

145791013

Comments

  • I thought I read on here and other sites that it would be around 200 tho? I apologise if I'm once again mistaken
  • As part of the question around "what" to say in the best manner, is it alright to contact my MP via email or would that give away too much of who I am if it has my name in it?

    I feel somewhat disillusioned and hypocritical as I haven't voted in years as it just feels like the same far off cycle 🙈
  • I can't lie that whilst maybe it's strange and silly of me, it's something kinda on my bucket list to beat a bigger company in court, but I know that's just be daring fate 🙈🙈🙈🙈
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,150 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Your contact with your MP has to include your name and address. Ask for help.

    Your thread is now so  long, I've forgotten what stage you are at! Remind us.  
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Fruitcake
    Fruitcake Posts: 58,203 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Thinking about this a bit more, the sign by the bike rack is not a car park entrance sign, it is a direction sign telling you "Car Park this way." Therefore, there is no entrance sign at the beginning of the service road, therefore it would be reasonable to assume that car park Ts and Cs don't apply on that road.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • fisherjim
    fisherjim Posts: 6,006 Forumite
    Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    edited 28 November 2023 at 2:14PM
    Pointless complaining to the owners of that car park as it IS owned by NCP and has been for 50 years apparently:
    That entrance has been basically a honeytrap for many years I suspect, and NCP have a hut on site with someone ready to pounce.
    I repeat what has already been said that POPLA should not reject an appeal based on lack of and non conforming signage.
    I would show dated pictures of the lack of signage, on that entrance road, then when NCP submit their claim that it is plentiful and to BPA COPpick holes in it.
    I wouldn't submit signage pictures let them do it then and show their hand then rubbish their claims by picking holes in their submission.
    You can not enter into a contract when the contract is not in sight, and the entrance to the car park is quite clearly bounded with a defined entrance you never crossed.
    Stop looking for reasons to incriminate yourself instead of evidence as to why you did nothing wrong, forget the DYL they mean one thing on a road, which is what you are taught in the Highway Code, and anything they want them to be in a private car park, but in this case you couldn't  tell you were in a private car park.
    That's me out this is getting ridiculous.

    IN MARCH 2009 IT LOOKED LIKE THIS:


  • Trainerman
    Trainerman Posts: 1,245 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Photogenic Name Dropper
    Lollip456 said:
    As part of the question around "what" to say in the best manner, is it alright to contact my MP via email or would that give away too much of who I am if it has my name in it?

    I feel somewhat disillusioned and hypocritical as I haven't voted in years as it just feels like the same far off cycle 🙈
    Then you are giving him/her a valuable chance to win your vote.

    Do please read and understand the posts just above by @Fruitcake and @fisherjim, both experienced and well worth listening to.

    As others have said, you are talking yourself into being in the wrong. You need to be more positive. To this end, I will try to simplify just one thing. 

    Yes, you parked on double yellows (like many others at that location, it seems) , so , if it is not private land a copper (for example ) could issue a real fine but they didn't.

    Instead , a Private Parking Company is trying to take money off you by using contract law. As people are trying to point out, no sign = no contract = no breach, so according to that logic you are not in the wrong.

    If those that might have had a right to fine you did not, why open your wallet to those that do not???
  • Your contact with your MP has to include your name and address. Ask for help.

    Your thread is now so  long, I've forgotten what stage you are at! Remind us.  
    I have contacted no one with ~5 days till I can no longer pay the cheaper rate
  • Fruitcake said:
    Our MPs are the only ones who can change the law. It's happening. There have been consultations and proposals and discussions in parliament that resulted in new parking bill being passed. This was due to the number of motorists who complained. Sadly, the supporting code of practice has been delayed by the stalling tactics of the unregulated private parking industry, but earlier this year there was a government consultation with the public, a call for evidence as it was called. Hopefully the new mandatory code will be in operation next year.

    Again, this is down to the motorists who complained and campaigned to their MPs. Do not think for one minute that your voice is not important. It is estimated that 22 000 parking charge notices are issued every day. Imagine the impact if everyone who got one complained. It would bring parliament to a halt. Sadly, not enough people do complain, but every voice counts, so please, make yours heard.

    Again, forget about the double yellow lines, they are irrelevant. Stop trying to blame yourself. Don't be a victim. 
    What is relevant is the inadequate signage that failed to bring the parking terms to the notice of the driver. The driver could not have agreed to a contract if they couldn't read the contract (the signs).


    I've had a look at the Google Streetview images again, and I've noted the following.
    The car park sign was on the left in 2020, and planted in the roadway. It's been moved. It's on the right, inside the confines of the car park. 
    I think the man on the Clapham omnibus (a legal term used by judges to describe the average reasonable person) would conclude that previously the landowner that owns the roadway complained and forced NCP to move the sign off their property where they did not have a contract to operate, and into the car park where they do have a contract.
    Even if it is the same landowner, the implication is that it was previously outside the area where NCP had a contract, and had to move it accordingly.

    In addition, both the old entrance sign and the new one have direction arrows pointing along the roadway to the car park. If the car park included the roadway, there would be no need for the direction arrows. This points (pardon the pun) to the roadway not being part of the car park, therefore the parking Ts and Cs do not apply to the roadway, but instead only apply within the car park boundary.
    The sign by the bike-rack is informing motorists that the car park is down the roadway. This is backed up by the car park entrance sign with the parking tariff board being next to the car wash sign at the far end of the roadway, next to the car park height barrier. Again, that implies that the car park begins at the height barrier, and therefore parking terms start after that point, not on the roadway.
    This is supported by the three yellow signs on the right of the roadway. They are all inside the wooden rail-fence. Again I think it would be reasonable for the man on the Clapham omnibus to believe the signs only applied to the car park inside the boundary, and not to the roadway itself. 
    There are no signs at all on the roadway, let alone signs capable of forming a contract, therefore it is reasonable to believe the roadway is not covered by the parking terms posted inside the car park. If they did apply, they would be outside, in the roadway.
    There is no map or site boundary, so there is no way a motorist would know when the parking terms began or ended. This is an unfair contract term. 
    The consumer Rights Act 2015 states that where a contract (in this case the signs) can be interpreted in a different way, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer (in this case, the motorist) is the one that is deemed to apply.
    From all of the above, my interpretation of the contract is that it only applies within the car park boundary bordered by the wooden rail-fence, and does not apply to the roadway.

    that's an amazing amazing summary overview!! 😄😄😄 Thank you!
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.9K Life & Family
  • 247.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards