Here is how it ends!! Basically after several bullying intimidation efforts through the court once they read my defense which is duly submitted to the court waiting for judgement then they propose an amicable agreement to walk away.
Below is the defense: Enjoy:
The reasons for me to defend this case
1 The charge NCP are claiming are not due anyway for the reasons that follow later on.
2 although it is much more expensive for me to defend this case in the manner I am doing it, it is important that NCP does stop getting away with this practice because this can affect more vulnerable members of the public. I am in the fortunate position to have the time and the knowledge to do so, however the vast majority of the consumers who like me have been affected by these unscrupulous actions succumb to the pressure and pay hefty sums that are not due. This has to stop. If NCP wants to legitimately and charge consumers (decent hard working people which have all my respect and admiration) for parking this has to be done ethically and it cannot be possible that a fare or 5 to 10 pound can multiply by a facot of 150 (15000%) in the space of less than one year! NCP can do this to me but not to ordinary people who work hard for a living and pay high taxes already day in and day out and have families to support! This has to stop! In light of this even if defending and winning this case is not economically viable it is important that it ti won so that this will set an example and will have NCP and other companies to act ethically and lawfully. It is immoral to take someone to court to try and obtain almost 300 pound for failure to pay a parking charge! This is most cases is 20% or more or someones net monthly salary!
3 It is important my claim tor 100 payment from NCP is granted as this will represent a clear victory to consumers in general. It is not the money I am interest in for 100 pound does not change my life and the court can at their discretion demand this to be paid to any children charity of the court’s choice or if given to me this will be paid into Informed Consent Action Network. It is also important to understand that the cost of this suit if far higher than the 100 pound compensation, we demand this compensation which will be paid to a charitable cause as a symbolic statement which will hopefully stop this practice to carry on and hurt ordinary families.
In Essence if NCP wants to levy charges these have to be proportionate, there must be consent *introduction of barriers) and the interests on an unpaid invoice (car park notice) has to be fair and lawful if it is applicable.
1 Ticketing machine was not present onsite.The only method available to pay was on the NCP website. This is not a sufficient payment method as we will see shortly.
2 Payment was promptly attempted online (because I saw thee pound sign, the only sign indication that there could have been a charge) and the website showed that the license plate did not appear on their database (Se evidence on annex 1). Hence I thought no payment was due. This was explained to NCP in writing but they ignored it in their response (see annex 2). We submitted picture evidence that the vehicle license plate number did not appear on their website, this was ignored but not disputed at any time. Also we pointed out several other points to them (in annex 1) and they ignored them all. They only said in their response that given that a pound sign was present their charge for 100 pound was due. Therefore payment was attempted unsuccessfully online, no other form of payment was available (this was the only form of payment collection available) to the driver. The issue was that when inputting the car registration the online system showed the message saying that no such car registration was found. No other payment options were available on site, not ticketing machines were available on site, no kiosks, nothing. At which point I thought that for some reason payment was not due, maybe the stop was very short therefore no payment was due. Of course I went on my activities thinking that everything was fine. A number of weeks later I received a letter asking for the payment of 100 pounds. I sent a letter to NCP telling of the failed attempt to pay due to their payment system failure (see annex 1). I proposed I paid 10 pound for the car stop at the airport (see annex 1). I also referred to several number of irregularities with the the area in question. These where ignored by NCP. NCP responded saying that the pound sign was displayed and therefore the payment of 100 pound was due, no reference to my attempt to pay on the day was made. additionally all other points made in my letter were completely ignored (see annex 2)
The offer of payment of 10 pound should have been accepted at the time by NCP to settle this As seen in Annex 1 and this was completely ignored as seen in annex 2. This offer should have been accepted as their payment method did not work as shown in the photographic evidence we sent to NCP at the time. (See Annex 1).
No Payment was due anyway. Despite the offer made to NCP it is important to note that it seems clear no payment was due anyway. This was due to the absence of barriers, price structure at the entrance or anywhere else, no term and conditions displayed anywhere, no double yellow lines on site, no ticketing machines and several other points that were never disputed at the time by NCP (See annex 2). To be clear we raised all these points and more in our letter to NCP in early 2022 (see annex 1) and none of these points were disputed by NCP (See annex 2) . It is reasonable to understand that the reason NCP did not respond to any of these points was because they were all valid and true, otherwise NCP would have responded accordingly. This payment was offered at the time as a gesture of goodwill only.
No terms and conditions or pricing was present onsite. This was not denied by NCP as you can see in annex 2. After BW Legal filed suit in 2023 BW legal sent us a picture of terms that allegedly were (according to them) on site at the time (this is disputed by us). They only sent an isolated picture of a sign without any context and without any proof that it belonged to the site in question and without proving that it was displayed before entrance and without any proof that this was indeed a picture of the site at the time of the stop over. According to the picture that were received from BW legal after the lawsuit started it appears that the change applicable would be 5 pound subject to timing of stay. Also these terms of the picture sent to us by BW legal appear to be unfair especially if (for any reason) the driver is unable to make the payment, the charge multiply by a factor of 10 or 20 within the space of 24 hours. As seen in our introduction, this is unfair especially because there were no other modalities of payment other than online, and as pointed out the online payment option failed.
Length of stay. This is a parking change when the car only stopped and never parked. It is important to note that the car only stopped and was never parked. NCP had incorrectly issued a Parking Charge notice and it should have issued a not a stop over notice, if and only if a double yellow line was present on site. The name itself says it , the charge is for parking and not just stopping. Additionally to charge for stopping and not parking there should have been double yellow lines onsite. There was no double yellow line. There was no evidence that the car was parked and and for how long. NCP only sent pictures of the car in a letter back in 2022. That was all. It is up to NCP to prove the car did not stop only but it was parked (hence the parking charge). Also it is on NCP to prove the length of stay with irrefutable evidence, not just with pictures and a fate stamp which could be manipulated.
No entry barriers or exit barrier were on site. If barriers were present it would have not been possible to leave without payment (if this was due) and there would have been ticketing machines onsite to allow payments so that the driver is allowed to drive off. If NCP allows drivers to drive off offering only online payments that do not work then it is their decision but then NCP cannot expect to charge exorbitant amounts afterwards for their own failure to provide effective payment methods onsite. It is the responsibility of the car park operator to avoid operating the car park in an unfair fashion as seen here. The car park operator has the responsibility (if they want to lawfully charge customers) that the car park is operated fairly and one of the factors that ensures fairness is the presence of entry.exit barrier s including ticketing machines.
The only sign available was a pound sign and nothing else, no terms and conditions were present on site. This is confirmed in writing by the response to the letter we sent to NCP in early 2022, In-fact NCP never denied the absence of signage displaying the terms and conditions. See annex 2. Only pound signs were available to be seen on site and no payment terms were visible on site at the time. This is proven by the fact that when we wrote a letter to NCP explaining that this was not denied. NCP replied saying that the mere pound sign was sufficient to charge 100 pound to Andreas Russo.No mention was made of the signage of the terms and conditions simply because they were not present at the time.
The price increase from 5 pound to 100 to almost 300 pound within the space of 12 months is arbitrary unlawful. The price for the charge increased almost four fold. This is arbitrary and not allowable by current UK Law. Even id any charge where due the claim for almost 300 pound is completely arbitrary. The amount is too high considering that the amount quadrupled within the space of less than 12 months. This is unlawful as per the information explained in “The allowable increments to a parking charge notice.”
No payment was due at any time due to the reasons outlined above.
Despite that payment was attempted and the online payment system showed that no such car registration was in their database. This was done in 2022.
Despite all above an offer of payment of a fair amount of 10 pound was made to NCP in 2022. However NCP simply ignored it.
The terms and conditions sent to us by BW Legal AFTER the lawsuit seem unfair in the first place, but none of the pictures sent by BW legal after the lawsuit were on site at the time of the drop off.
The charges increased over the space of less than 12 months almost threefold this is arbitrary and goes against the applicable UK law.
First Letter to NCP
Response from NCP