NCP file for administration

Ali195 said:
No tramps or local scum because they can’t reach it.
Click to expand...
Not everywhere, as depending on the location, some retail parks can attract scum too.

Where I used to live a couple years ago, there was a retail park down the road which has free parking for 3 hours, and that often attracted scounges at nighttime causing noise nuisances. Mind you, there was a McDonald's in the retail park coupled with the free parking, so not too surprising.

Poorly maintained too, I remember one winter, there were very deep potholes scattered within the car park. Took months and months for whoever to come out and patch them, only for the potholes to reappear anyway. Sounds onpar with how the councils maintain our roads too anyway.
 
Rai200 said:
Seems an absurd middle man, why would the owners simply not run them as a car park and make bank? You need like 10 staff for each one, gonna be on minimum wage.

One near me has 800 spaces, £34 for all day. Higher rates per hour for shorter times. Assuming it's full 50% of the time, at the lower 24h rate on average that's 4.95 million a year with a wage cost of £250k. Some electric, water, maintenance supplies and it should be massively profitable. Buildings have been there decades so presumably paid off.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point these places don't own the land they sit on they pay ridiculous land lease charges. Its all a stitch up to bleed anyone owning the building its sitting on dry of cash. Leasehold properties are the same paying an ungodly rate just for the privilege of the bricks sitting on a piece of land the property owner doesn't own.
 


I'm the last person to stick up for people who simply park incorrectly or don't buy a ticket, but I'll struggle to shed a tear for the staff laid off, they chose to work for a predatory outfit.
 
Only time I ever got a parking ticket was from these, I was fully parked in a marked bay, the car next to mine was on white lines (corner) but they refused to retract it, sent ticket and photos to the TPT who ruled in my favour 30 min after receiving it.

Felt like the only reason I got the ticket to begin with is cause they know people will just pay the 'cheaper' rate and not dispute it.
 
I heard they sold carparks and leased them back... classic

how do you fail to be profitable running whats essentially a shop where customers come inside and pay you for simply being there.

I'm guessing loads of people got priced out, they couldnt service the leases on carparks anymore but couldnt contractually terminate them either.
 
Last edited:
Apparently it isn't the first time NCP has been riddled with debt, think I read they were also in a bad way around 2011, with a Japanese firm buying them in more recent times.
 
arknor said:
I heard they sold carparks and leased them back... classic

how do you fail to be profitable running whats essentially a shop where customers come inside and pay you for simply being there.

I'm guessing loads of people got priced out, they couldnt service the leases on carparks anymore but couldnt contractually terminate them either.
Click to expand...
typical.

I'm guessing the land in a lot of cases is potentially worth a lot more than it was sold for, and the buyer was another company owned by the vulture capital company.
It's one of the standard things they do, buy up a company (like Woolies) that owns it's property/buildings/land using a loan that is secured against the company, then sells the property/buildings/land to another company they own cheap, and rent it back to the original company who will eventually go under due to the cost of the debts/interest and rental of the stuff they used to own outright so the VC ends up with the assets, the money and none of the debt.
 
muon said:
NCP at least had a genuine operating model, providing urban parking largely to commuters (which obviously doesn't work these days).

Half the parking companies these days make half of their money from "fines" after conning land owners to "free" car park management.
Click to expand...

I forgot to pay my Stansted drop and drive for my daughter picking up my mum and even though I realised what I had done I was too late to pay as it was over 48 hours so instead of the 7 quid which is bad enough I had to pay £60. Luckily through a Reddit thread the company is operating on a airfield which different laws apply and as such they cannot lawfully request the driver of the vehicle from the registered keeper and cannot fine the registered keeper so cannot legally chase money so it is a dead end.

Everyone in this country can legally drop and drive in Stansted (I think it is the same for Heathrow and other airports) without paying a single penny.
 
adam cool dude said:
I forgot to pay my Stansted drop and drive for my daughter picking up my mum and even though I realised what I had done I was too late to pay as it was over 48 hours so instead of the 7 quid which is bad enough I had to pay £60. Luckily through a Reddit thread the company is operating on a airfield which different laws apply and as such they cannot lawfully request the driver of the vehicle from the registered keeper and cannot fine the registered keeper so cannot legally chase money so it is a dead end.

Everyone in this country can legally drop and drive in Stansted (I think it is the same for Heathrow and other airports) without paying a single penny.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. They can pursue the driver, not necessarily the registered keeper. But we both know they are 95% of the time the same person.

If you were the driver then they can legally pursue you. It would require you to lie in court to say, "whilst I was the registered keeper, I was not the driver on that day". Because people are willing to do this in the face of no evidence to contradict the statement, usually parking companies give up.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
That isn't true. They can pursue the driver, not necessarily the registered keeper. But we both know they are 95% of the time the same person.

If you were the driver then they can legally pursue you. It would require you to lie in court to say, "whilst I was the registered keeper, I was not the driver on that day". Because people are willing to do this in the face of no evidence to contradict the statement, usually parking companies give up.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be lying in court because I was not the driver. I am also not under legal obligation to give them the drivers details. Likewise if I were to drive a vehicle where I am not the registered keeper.

They have done it on purpose as there was zero issue before with the gates. They know very well that this new barrier less system is going to get them fine money by simple forgetfulness. They put a very short window to pay too.
 
Last edited:
Everyone obviously having some schaudenfreude here with NCP. But surely there will be other operators who face similar challenges if they also don't own their parks and are being charged high rents by owners? It's not like the business model is going to be vastly different with the next firm
 
cyber69 said:
Just need to ban ANPR for use in car parks now
Click to expand...
I dont even mind ANPR being used providing the prices are clear, payment is simple and there is a reasonable grace period for non payment for things like expired credit cards.

Much of it seems intentionally complex or difficult in order to catch people out.
 
adam cool dude said:
I wouldn't be lying in court because I was not the driver. I am also not under legal obligation to give them the drivers details. Likewise if I were to drive a vehicle where I am not the registered keeper.

They have done it on purpose as there was zero issue before with the gates. They know very well that this new barrier less system is going to get them fine money by simple forgetfulness. They put a very short window to pay too.
Click to expand...

You can't be compelled to, but the judge can take into account you refused to answer and in the absence of you saying otherwise on the balance of probabilities (>50% chance) you were probably the driver.

Forgetfulness is hardly an excuse either.

In your case, whoever the driver was, could be pursued if they could be identified.

Quoting your statement before again

Everyone in this country can legally drop and drive in Stansted (I think it is the same for Heathrow and other airports) without paying a single penny.
Click to expand...

This is completely wrong. You try doing that in your own car and present that argument in court.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
You can't be compelled to, but the judge can take into account you refused to answer and in the absence of you saying otherwise on the balance of probabilities (>50% chance) you were probably the driver.
Click to expand...

The car actually has 3 insured drivers on it so the balance of probabilities is not what you state. What can the judge do to the registered keeper for not supplying driver details which they are not compelled to do? Seems cut and dry to me. Especially as airport land is not relevant land.

It is down to the parking company to prove who the driver was.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom