PCN from NPM

Coupon-mad

Scapegoat1 said:

So basically any one can buy some land and trap people in to entering that land and then make thousands of pounds a year of innocent victims?  

Yes. Just as clampers used to do, only now this is a £billion industry.

And they never have to buy any land.

They just persuade gullible retailers and landowners to let them operate a 'protection racket' style scam in the car park 'free'.

LDast

Scapegoat1 said:

@Thorndorise thank you for your response. Yes I had the same problem the IPC sed they don't believe the NPM have breached any code of conduct? Can't understand why as the code of conduct states multiple singes in and around the land should be present (there was not) so how is that not a beach of conduct? 

It's not a Code of "Conduct". It's a Code of Practice (CoP). The CoP makes no mention of "singes"

Scapegoat1 said:
So basically any one can buy some land and trap people in to entering that land and then make thousands of pounds a year of innocent victims?  

When is this actually going to be come a crime todo such a thing? It infuriates me. 

Think bigger... over a billion!

Scapegoat1

@LDast it most certainly does mention
that was the 2021 that was in place at the time  singes.  

LDast

I appreciate you may be dyslexic, however, I still see no mention of "singes".

S I N G E S
S I G N S

Anyway, the IPC will wriggle out of the one because it says "Entrance signs should:". "Should" is not "must".

Scapegoat1

@LDast Altho it's a-bit misleading and confusing. In one statement it says "where a carpark has a defined entrances  operators should display entrance sings."  That to me reads it should! Meaning must? Or am I wrong? 

This was the NPM response when I asked them to refer to their code of practice. 

"The IPC code version 8, the code in place during the issuing of this charge, states “Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs”. This statement infers that this is best practice but not essential. The site, signage and signage location were all audited by the IPC and found to be approved in accordance with the code of practice."

the carpark in question most defiantly had a defined entrance to the point it had gates it could close to prevent people from entering. 

No singe was at the entrance or even facing the entrance. So I don't understand how they can state they haven't breached the code of practice? 

It also states  "singes should be sufficient in number" I assume only one singe doesn't qualify for sufficient in number? There for a second breach?  

This was there response,  "At the time of contravention, the site displayed 3 large signs, 2 on the buildings and a third mounted on a post on the opposing side of the land. (photos attached)"  
(that was a lie as no signs was there) 

 and they sent me photographic evidence of 3 singes but time stamped sept 2023 a year after the incident. I sent them photographic evidence time stamped the date of the alleged offence showing no sings. 

 

LDast

Who do you think you are dealing with? The IPC have only a single purpose and that is to protect their paying members. You and your arguments come somewhere below gutter level as far as they are concerned.

So, you can continue and try to argue with the IPC which is the equivalent of Don Quixote tilting at windmills or get on with your life and eat to see if/when a claim is made against you. That is the time to make your arguments as the county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service and one a judge can decide whether your owe a debt or not.

Save your energy and sanity.

Oh, and I don't know if you deliberately refer to signs as singes but you really should take it on board that it doesn't help you when trying to make a point.

Thorndorise

said:

Altho it's a-bit misleading and confusing. In one statement it says "where a carpark has a defined entrances  operators should display entrance sings."  That to me reads it should! Meaning must? Or am I wrong? 

 
Sadly it is a little misleading and confusing, and they really rely on that to make it as difficult as possible.

IPC did actually update this CoP for V9 and made a big deal of incorporating the Gov's dropped single CoP Annex A in that newer version, even though they did this, and it stipulates it 'must' be done,. they still quote the same old garbage about this bit that says 'should' - therefore not mandatory.

Don't exhaust yourself with this, it is rubbish, but easier to defend at court than to deaf ears of the IPC

Scapegoat1

@LDast hi yes I am not in comunication with the IPC I referred to the code of proactive when informing NPM that I would not be paying the invoice. 

I assume I will need to refer to the code of conduct in court as a reason as to why the invoice is invalid due to them breaching the code of practice? Otherwise what other ground do I have to argue my case? The reason I breached the so called contract was because I wasn't made aware of one when entering the carpark or while in the carpark due to lack of sings. 

It's moving pretty quickly on there end it's been around 4 months now and the next letter will be from the soliciter so I feel I need as much guidance as possible to prepare me for my response. 

I have red a template and the only thing one I can gather from reading that is that it request personal dater to be removed  from their system.  Is that alone enough to get them off my back? 

Coupon-mad

I have red a template and the only thing one I can gather from reading that is that it request personal dater to be removed  from their system.  Is that alone enough to get them off my back? 

No it isn't. Just ignore them.

And it isn't moving quickly and you are not about to be taken to court.

 I have Received 4x dept collection letters from ZZps that I have ignore and awaiting solicitors letter. 

Ignore them and ignore the QDR letter when that comes (also from ZZPS, in fact).  Get on with your life. Only contact them if you move house. Come back if you get a court claim.

Scapegoat1

@Coupon-mad thank you the last letter I go states the next letter will be from a solicitors.  Do  I have to respond to the solicitors letter? Or only to the court letter?