NGP - Company Vehicle

Umkomaas · 16 July 2017 at 10:46AM

You can't use anything in court by way of 'ambush'. You are required to attempt to resolve this before reaching court. It's unlikely that you will succeed, but you must show that you have attempted to do so.

Gladstones routinely ignore anything provided to them by way of you trying to be reasonable, but their unreasonableness will not help their case in court.

Guys_Dad · 16 July 2017 at 12:15PM

Surely until Gladstones are instructed by the PPC, they are correct in stating they can not combine 3 separate parking events?

Yes, I know that the PPC/Gladstones can act unprofessionally in not starting each action until the previous one is settled. Certainly it would benefit Gladstones financially.

But, I think they are in the clear, legally, at present, unfortunately.

Coupon-mad · 16 July 2017 at 6:28PM

Maybe but it is disingenuous and arguably unfair and an abuse of the court process, for the claimant parking firm not to show due diligence and check their data records and if/when approaching Gladstones to start a claim, combine all 'charges' at that stage.

If more than one claim arrives, the OP needs to try to get a Judge to look at it and combine them.

Guys_Dad · 16 July 2017 at 9:44PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe but it is disingenuous and arguably unfair and an abuse of the court process, for the claimant parking firm not to show due diligence and check their data records and if/when approaching Gladstones to start a claim, combine all 'charges' at that stage.

If more than one claim arrives, the OP needs to try to get a Judge to look at it and combine them.

I agree entirely with you on this. The PPC should be in the frame here, but your post #17 laid the fault at Gladstones' door. At this point in time, I can't agree that they are at fault, not having been instructed - yet. The minute they are instructed, if there is more than one ticket for the same "offence", then I would agree with your post #17 100%.

Noree · 23 July 2017 at 9:58PM

Perhaps not always advised, but didn’t respond to the LBC. Not the end of the day I suppose.
So I’ve been sent the a Claim Form and will be defending in full. I have completed the AOS on MCOL. Do I now have to click on “Start Defence” or wait until my defence is completed? Had a look about and couldn’t be sure whether to click on and proceed or not?

I will be drafting a defence in the next couple of days and will post on here for your kind selves to critique/advise.

Here are some POFA 2012 and other possible reasons in defence:
1. Paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 - “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken.

2. Only received a PCN, then a LBC letter sent, followed by court claim papers. No “Final Notice”.

3. Not the driver, but would be pending that POFA has been followed on their side.

4. After coming across the following, http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html, visited the site of the alleged offence and noticed signs with BPA and Safe Contractor logo on some signs. They were found at both the entrance and exit of the site. Pictures & videos taken with proof of date for authenticity. Other signs had stickers with IPC and not all signs clearly visible. As per http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/New_Generation_Parking_Management.html, they changed from BPA to IPC on 30/12/2015, so some of the signage is well out of date!

5. I have let Gladstones know about the incorrect signage but not heard anything back. Offered my transparency and any further help on matters.

6. Did not appeal as thought to be a scam and another ‘roboclaim’. Was half-minded about taking this seriously. COULD SOMEONE DEFINE THE TERM “ROBOCLAIM” PLEASE SO I CAN ADD TO MY DEFENCE? Thanks!

7. Two other PCN’s against myself, both sent after realisation of first PCN. This case is regarding the first PCN. Only one PCN has final notice and no other LBC’s sent.

8. Communicated with Gladstones to combine all three cases with NGP. Also copied in NGP on email for transparent dialogue.

9. Likely to waste time/money/effort of courts as likely to have to repeat these processes three times (this court claim is only for one case).

10. As for the ‘balance of likelihood’ being the hirer of this lease vehicle, more than one person has access to drive. This is more likely on weekends, which when this alleged offence took place. The identity of the driver on this date and time cannot be confirmed. First notice sent over 2 months from alleged offence and due to the time taken to be made aware of offence, the hirer cannot remember who would’ve been driving. More than one driver authorised to drive lease vehicle.

11. PCN was addressed “Notice to Owner”. Not to Keeper, or Driver. The “Notice to Owner” would be for the attention of the lease company. I am the “hirer” of the vehicle. See paragraph 2 of POFA 2012.
Feedback on these points would be very much appreciated. I do understand that some may be clutching at straws, but thought it may be worth including in case there’s something to work with.
Would it be worth contacting the lease company to see if they can tell me when the PCN was first sent to them?

I also have a link of the original PCN they sent myself, plus the signage. http://imgur.com/a/eqBg9

Checking the old PCN sent to my work address, the final notice was under 6 weeks from the alleged offence. Is this too soon? As mentioned, I haven’t received a final notice for this same PCN. Odd?!

It may be a fact that on the other 2 occasions, they didn’t get the information on the (same) vehicle from DVLA.

From the Parking Cowboys website:

“We are aware of anecdotal evidence that some parking companies have not met this requirement; they have got keeper data via other means. For example, reusing keeper data from other tickets issued to that vehicle, or assuming the keeper’s details from the vehicle livery (e.g. a company van). If the parking company used another means to get the keepers details, other than making an application to the Secretary of State (via its agents at the DVLA), then arguably there is no keeper liability.”

May be worth asking the lease company to find out if the registered keeper details have been obtained and how many times?

Redx · 23 July 2017 at 10:03PM

you dont start adding any defence at all for the moment

you have extended the period for drafting from 14 days to 28 days

when the defence is complete , you save it as a pdf and EMAIL it to the CCBC with the mcol reference etc in the title

post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread explains the procedures

Noree · 23 July 2017 at 10:37PM

Noticed on another thread that also this particular sign states a Parking Tarif Notice may be issued. Not had any of those in the post, only PCN's. Can this invalidate the whole thing, along with the incorrect signage at the entrance and exit?

Redx · 23 July 2017 at 10:44PM

its merely an invoice , so NOTHING "invalidates" it

they simply call these things pcn for convenience , because its similar wording to a council pcn , and NTK just means a Notice To Keeper, there are no defining statutes that outline how it must be laid out or what it may say (or what it is called)

they could say an INVOICE will be issued , and leave it at that

I have been coming here almost 5 years , and NEVER seen a private parking ticket that was "invalid or invalidated"

Noree · 24 July 2017 at 1:30PM

Yea it's what I'd have thought, but suggested anyhow.

As for the start of my defence, any help on the 11 points + extra info and pictures would be great.

Many thanks

Coupon-mad · 24 July 2017 at 8:56PM

1. Paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 - “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken.

Hmmm...that's something and nothing, IMHO...what about the fact you are a lessee/hirer and the Notice completely failed to comply with para 13/14, for Notices to Hirer documents.

2. Only received a PCN, then a LBC letter sent, followed by court claim papers. No “Final Notice”.

Not important. The lack of Notice to HIRER and accompanying documents set out in 13/14 of Sch 4, IS important.

Google roboclaims, or just split the word, isn't it obvious what it means?

As for the photos, use the first one (BPA logo is wrong) not the second one, in evidence (your evidence and WS follows, later on, before a hearing).

For now we need you to show us your draft defence, all your arguments and points, and include mention of the NGPM criminal case and point out to the court that you have evidence that NGPM have done the same at this location.

NGP - Company Vehicle

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free