I agree with
@sparxy. If you paid NPCL using a debit or credit card, then yes, you should try a chargeback, depending on the type of card used and how long ago the payment was made.
If it was a debit card, the chargeback process allows consumers to ask their bank to reverse a payment where there's evidence of wrongdoing, error, or lack of service. In this case, you could argue that the money was paid under pressure for charges that were later confirmed to be invalid due to NPCL having no authority to issue them.
To initiate a chargeback on a debit card:
• Contact the bank that issued the card as soon as possible, ideally within 120 days of the payment.
• Provide all relevant evidence, such as the property manager’s confirmation that NPCL was not authorised, a copy of the PCNs, proof of payment, and any correspondence showing the refund request was refused.
• The bank will then raise the dispute with NPCL’s acquiring bank.
• If successful, the funds may be returned. However, the merchant (NPCL) can dispute it, in which case further evidence may be needed.
If it was a credit card and because the amount paid was over £100, you also have a legal right under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This makes the credit card company jointly liable with the merchant if there was a misrepresentation or breach of contract. Since NPCL had no authority to issue the charges, this qualifies as a misrepresentation or an unlawful demand.
Section 75 claims:
• Are made directly with the credit card provider.
• Require supporting documentation (similar to a chargeback).
• Are more robust than chargeback because they are a legal right.
In either case, these routes are separate from the court claim and could lead to recovery of the money regardless of the court outcome. They will also put pressure on NPCL if the funds are reversed. If the court claim later succeeds, you must of course inform the court and avoid double recovery.
With regards to the post about the timing of debt recovery letters, the comment about the timeline for issuing NtKs and debt recovery doesn’t really apply to the stage this case is at now.
Whether NPCL followed the proper order of notices or not is not the central issue here. The claimant has already paid the charges and is now suing to recover the money based on the fact that NPCL was never authorised to operate at the site. That’s the actual dispute.
So the question isn’t whether NPCL followed the correct procedural steps back in January or February, but whether they had any legal right to demand money in the first place. It doesn’t really help with the situation the claimant is in now.
