Not parked wholly within bay - NPE Earlham House Norwich

AliceinBlunderland

Hello all,

I have fallen foul of the notorious NPE at Earlham House, Norwich. They cite not parking wholly in a bay although their photo shows leaves partially covering the bay lines (at the front on the driver's side of my car). I wanted to make a post to document proceedings (having already found the ability to follow other people's experiences on the forum helpful), and also for guidance and moral support along the way. I want to play my part in resisting the predatory practices of firms like this, and would welcome advice on how best to add my voice to the crowds calling for reform and fighting back.

Research on the forum suggests that complaining to the Co-op which is served by the car park is a fruitless enterprise, but I have done so nonetheless. I also intend to complain to my MP and the MP for the constituency where Earlham House is, as he's likely aware of their practices given how often it features in the local news. Any tips/templates for what to include when contacting parliamentarians? Also, do I have grounds to complain the the DVLA? And if so, could someone please point me in the direction of the best advice for how to do so, and what sort of things to mention?

In the meantime, I have sent a long list of reasons why I dispute the charge to the email address on the NTK: eg. claim not evidenced with photos of signage, no proof provided that the Landowner authorises the issuing and enforcement of parking charging, querying if they are claiming the driver entered into a contract with them, and how in the 4 min 59 seconds they register my car as having been in the car park they think the driver could have read all the terms and conditions of their contract in order to arrive at an informed decision about whether to agree to it or not.

They replied (quoting the email) saying they can't process an appeal, and won't address any of my queries, l because I didn't include my name, my car reg and my home address, which seems daft as all that information is on the NTK, obtained from the DVLA. I am reluctant to restate it in my emails on the basis that I didn't consent for them to obtain that data in the first place, and I don't really consider what I'm doing to be appealing the charge (who appeals an invoice?) so much as explaining why I don't recognise the basis on which they are seeking to establish a claim that I owe them anything.

My view is that the onus is on NPE to prove to me that I owe them money given that they initiated contact, not on me to persuade them to drop it. After all, no sensible person would respond to any other kind of communication from out of the blue requesting money by offering or confirming personal details.

They offered instead that I could include a photo of the NTK in the appeal as that contains the relevant info. While I'm conscious the whole "asking a company that wants to pursue me for £100 to reconsider and not pursue me for £100" is probably a waste of time anyway, is there any circumstance in which acquiescing to this and supplying a photo of the NTK would work to my advantage or disadvantage down the line?

Research on the forum seems to show that NPE previously never got as far as the court stage, but I think I read on a recent thread that a poster had received a letter of claim from them, so I'm trying to approach everything with the question in mind: "how would I justify this to a judge?", just in case things get to that stage.

All advice (and moral support) welcome. 

Grizebeck

1. Don't bother with NPE your wasting your time but of course you include those details 

Coupon-mad

Agreed. Of course you include your name, address, VRM etc when responding, otherwise they can't be sure you are the same data subject and they can (correctly) ignore you.

But personally I'd just ignore them. They still never litigate. I doubt they have the brain cells.

AliceinBlunderland

Minor correction. I supplied my name and NTK charge number but had missed off address and car reg. I figured that they could check that the PCN number corresponded with the name.