PE lose court case at St Albans (again)

bargepole

Following my one and only appearance at St Albans County Court nearly two years ago, I was back there again today.

This was case B7FC00H1 – Parking Eye v Mrs B, before District Judge McKinnell.

This was a Barnet Hospital case, where the defendant had gone to pick up her daughter, and spent 34 minutes driving around the access roads trying to find out which department her daughter was likely to be in. She had parked for a brief period in the 20 minute drop off zone, but never parked in any of the Patient & Visitor car parks as alleged by PE.

She had previously been to a hearing in December, and unfortunately a wasted costs order for £160 had been awarded against her, as she had failed to comply with the Judge’s directions for filing her witness statement. She would not, however, have to pay this if she won her case,

The documents she had previously sent in can best be described as an emotional and unstructured rant. She then contacted Mr Mustard, and the Prankster, and it ended up in my lap at quite short notice.

I prepared a new skeleton argument, focusing on three key points. I had also emailed this to Rosanna at PE last week, with a ‘drop hands’ offer, but received no response:

1/ A letter from LB of Barnet showed that there was no planning permission for the signs and cameras, therefore the illegality defence applied.
2/ PE’s photos were from two different areas of the complex, and provided no evidence that she parked in contravention of the terms.
3/ Because of the above, the Beavis decision could not be relied upon by the Claimant.

A Mr Harris appeared for PE, quite a pleasant chap whom I’d met before at Watford.

We went in just after 2pm for a 2 hour hearing, and the Judge wanted to hear both sides of the case in full.

Mr Harris addressed the illegality point, by saying that as no enforcement action had been taken by LB Barnet, there was no evidence of illegality, and therefore the defence could not rely on that point.

He then said that, as Mrs B’s initial defence on the MCOL form denied ever visiting Barnet Hospital, and then she changed it when she received the photos, her evidence should be treated as unreliable.

He agreed that the Beavis judgment would only need to be considered if the Claimant succeeded on the first two points.

He was allowed to cross-examine Mrs B, and tried to suggest that her subsequent witness statement, in which she denied ever parking, was made up after discussing the case with her daughter, and 83-year old mother, who had been with her at the time, so it wasn’t a contemporaneous account. Mrs B stuck to her guns, and answered in a positive and assertive manner, to her credit.

I then argued for the defendant, that the fact that Barnet had chosen not to issue an enforcement notice, didn’t detract from the fact that there was no planning permission for the signage, which constituted advertisements in law, therefore they could not rely on contracts created by unlawful signage.

I pointed out that PE’s photos showed the vehicle entering from one part of the complex, and exiting from a different part, and did not provide any evidence that she had parked for any length of time, or at all. I supplied a transcript from the 2014 case of PE v Mrs X at Altrincham, where it was ruled that driving around did not constitute parking (I believe Ivor Pecheque may have mentioned this case once or twice).

I also agreed that we weren’t arguing the penalty aspect, as Beavis wasn’t relevant to this case.

The Judge sent us out for 20 minutes while she considered her verdict, and then went through the case in her judgment.

She said she agreed with the Claimant’s representative that, as there was no enforcement notice or criminal charges pending, the illegality defence could not succeed.

She did, however, find Mrs B to be a credible witness, and accepted her evidence that she never parked. PE had not made out their case to prove that she parked for 34 minutes, or at all, and the claim would fail on that basis. She also commented that PE’s signage only talks about ‘parking’, and doesn’t make it clear that the clock starts ticking once you pass the ANPR cameras.

She agreed that she did not need to consider Beavis, as no contract had been breached.

Costs were awarded to the defendant of £47.50 for a half day off work, plus £7.50 parking, total £55.

The lesson to learn from this for anyone receiving a court claim, is don’t rush to put a load of rubbish down as your defence as soon as you receive the claim, acknowledge service and take the full 28 days.

Coupon-mad

Round of applause for bargepole again; he stands up against litigious bullies and wins.

Shame on PE suing people visiting Hospital.

trisontana

I wonder what Barnet Hospital has to say about this?

dazster

trisontana wrote: »

I wonder what Barnet Hospital has to say about this?

:lipsrseal

Ivor_Pecheque

Well done Bargepole.

Similar behavior at Macclesfield Hospital. The Trust are refusing to answer my FOI requests.

I've sent some questions to the board but so far, have had no response from them:

1) Were the commissioners of "Parking Eye" at Macclesfield Hospital aware of the Department of Health Guidelines, released in June 2014, which state, "Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only" prior to entering into their partnership with Parking Eye ?

2) If not, why not ?

3) How much revenue have Parking Eye generated from the Macclesfield Hospital site sine the "Go-live" date? (This can be calculated by the vat charges issued to The Trust by Parking Eye.)

4) How do The Trust record, monitor and publish the complaints and plaudits from staff, visitors, carers and patients, concerning their experience with your relationship with Parking Eye.

5) Are The Board proud of the service Parking Eye offer to the staff, visitors, carers and patients of Macclesfield Hospital ?




So far, no response.

The tales of misery, however, keep flooding in, here's one from last week...

I recently received a parking fine at Macc hospital. I had a consultant appointment at the antenatal clinic and paid for two hours but the consultant was running an hour late then I had to be strapped to a fetal heart rate monitor to monitor my baby's heart rate immediately as it was thought my baby could have been at risk (was then 28 weeks pregnant). Due to the old machine I was hooked up to, the reading was inaccurate and I ended up strapped to it for over two hours. Obviously during this time I was physically unable to walk back to the car park to move my car! Five hours after arriving I was 'free to go' from an appointment that usually takes about 1 hour. I have appealed the fine and provided evidence in form of my fetal heart trace but so far haven't heard back from them.

trisontana

I like this comment from the judge:-

She also commented that ParkingEye's signage only talks about ‘parking’, and doesn’t claim that the clock starts ticking once you pass the ANPR cameras.

I think that point has been raised in some successful POPLA rulings,

beamerguy

trisontana wrote: »

I like this comment from the judge:-

She also commented that ParkingEye's signage only talks about ‘parking’, and doesn’t claim that the clock starts ticking once you pass the ANPR cameras.

I think that point has been raised in some successful POPLA rulings,

Well done to Bargepole.:beer:

The same scenario must be applicable to all ANPR sites where signs just talk about parking which makes it vital that people take pictures

trisontana

I have found this 2014 quote from the hospital trust when PE first started infesting Barnet Hospital:-

A statement from the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust said: “The Parking Eye ANPR solution provides a fair and managed system supported by regular patrols to ensure that a safe and managed car park environment is maintained for all users. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
“The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is appropriate for a hospital environment as it ensures that patients can pay for the parking that they use and not have to anticipate how much time they will require.”

Looks like a press release written by Parking Eye

Redx

and in 2014 (later amended in oct 2015) the NHS released this press release that was approved by Jeremy Hunt

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

The_Deep

I am surprised that Beavis was even mentioned. What has a Hospital car park, where you can stay as long as you like, provided you pay, to do with a retail park car park where you can stay for free for two hours.

In any event, should hospitals allow patients to be taken to court when they overstay through no fault of their own?

I hope this lady has complained to her M.P.r

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

I am surprised that Beavis was even mentioned...

It was mentioned several times in PE's statements, and they included copies of all the Judgments in their 166 page bundle.

So it was necessary for us to make the point that it didn't apply in this case, because like it or not, in any parking case which goes to court the Judge is going to be aware of the case, and the defendant needs to make the arguments as to why the precedent shouldn't be followed.