Nforce Parking Management - £170 for a 3 min infringment

Gr1pr

Some other things to think about are 

The government did do something about it, they brought in the Private Parking Bill which became enacted over 5 years ago ( but they currently haven't brought in the mandatory Code of Practice, or CoP yet, its still being looked at by the MHCLG and we expect regulation to happen next year. )

You cannot state that the claimant didn't send it, didn't post it, you have no idea what happened, other than that you didn't receive it, not receiving paperwork is no defence, the only statement that the keeper can make is not receiving it 

But the other facts and lack of a proper consideration time to study the signs is a valid argument in court, no offer at the time, no consideration period, no contract formed 

My advice is stick to the facts about what you know, leaving any assumptions in the bin, no pretending to know what the Claimant did or didn't do. Their standard M. O. Is to post these invoices, and remainders, its what they all do on a daily basis, some 180 private parking companies issuing around the 12 million invoices per annum. On the balance of probabilities, they did send the NTK PCN letter 

None arrival at the correct destination is a different matter entirely, but not a defence per se

I would expect underhanded tactics by any IPC AOS member, so this saga is no surprise and we would hope that mandatory regulation would level up the playing field, coupon mad is involved in that process and has been for years 

Castle

Johnersh said:

interesting its a staff or customers only breach alleged. I’d have tried to have the o/p for “showroom parking” - parked at an angle across 2 bays. 

So now it’s pure grace periods and the fact that the parking contract is arguably impossible to perform since the driver cannot be a customer when the shop is shut and the terms don’t even allow a driver to pull up and establish that without being immediately charged.

Indeed, and as there was another car already parked in the car park, any reasonable driver would naturally assume that the shop was open.

refusingtopay2024

Gr1pr said:

Some other things to think about are 

The government did do something about it, they brought in the Private Parking Bill which became enacted over 5 years ago ( but they currently haven't brought in the mandatory Code of Practice, or CoP yet, its still being looked at by the MHCLG and we expect regulation to happen next year. )

You cannot state that the claimant didn't send it, didn't post it, you have no idea what happened, other than that you didn't receive it, not receiving paperwork is no defence, the only statement that the keeper can make is not receiving it 

But the other facts and lack of a proper consideration time to study the signs is a valid argument in court, no offer at the time, no consideration period, no contract formed 

My advice is stick to the facts about what you know, leaving any assumptions in the bin, no pretending to know what the Claimant did or didn't do. Their standard M. O. Is to post these invoices, and remainders, its what they all do on a daily basis, some 180 private parking companies issuing around the 12 million invoices per annum. On the balance of probabilities, they did send the NTK PCN letter 

None arrival at the correct destination is a different matter entirely, but not a defence per se

I would expect underhanded tactics by any IPC AOS member, so this saga is no surprise and we would hope that mandatory regulation would level up the playing field, coupon mad is involved in that process and has been for years 

I've had 3 letters over a 3 month period. If it's costing them a £1 per letter, they must have a cut-off point at which they either park or file a court claim. I would imagine that they have a statistical process for assessing who is most likely to pay, based on postcode, car value etc and any initial correspondance. Pure numbers game.  Actually, going through the whole process to a judgment is probably loss making at a £250 return.

Gr1pr

Of course its a numbers game, that is the main business model In play, regardless of the statement above, its clearly working and very, very lucrative 

The claimant parking company has 6 years to issue a court claim using MCOL 

refusingtopay2024

Gr1pr said:

Of course its a numbers game, that is the main business model In play, regardless of the statement above, its clearly working and very, very lucrative 

The claimant parking company has 6 years to issue a court claim using MCOL 

What would be your guestimate of the probability of being taken court, say within 1 year, for a random case? 

1 in 10? 1 in 100?

Coupon-mad

Zero.

Because that firm isn't litigious.

refusingtopay2024

Fourth letter received.  ZZPS x2, GCTT x 2.

Next stop the 'debt' will be passed to QDR Solicitors.

Offer of a short-term payment plan made.

Coupon-mad

As expected. Advice won't change and we don't need to see or hear about the purported QDR letter (already on lots of threads).

Castle

refusingtopay2024 said:

Fourth letter received.  ZZPS x2, GCTT x 2.

Next stop the 'debt' will be passed to QDR Solicitors.

Offer of a short-term payment plan made.

FYI-ZZPS and GCTT are actually the same company.

Coupon-mad

And the QDR letter is also sent by ZZPS.