County Claim - permit not displayed despite having staff permit

jordanbowen

Dear all,

I'm looking for advice that I haven't quite been able to piece together from reading the forums: I have been a issued with a County Court Claim by the solicitors of the landowner (also my employer) for parking in a staff car park and not displaying a permit, despite the fact that I have a permit.

I am a staff member of a large hospital trust that issues staff parking permits on a very restricted basis due to limited space - priority staff, frequent unsociable hours, domiciled outside a radius (3 miles I think, I live 25 miles away). I have a permit because I meet all criteria. The permit is issued to two specific car registration numbers (printed on the permit), though only one permit is issued.

I received a 'Breach of Contract Notice' when parked in the regular staff carpark for not displaying my permit, which was true because I left the permit in my other household car. I frequently drive either of my two household cars depending on whether I am dropping off my baby at nursery (I take the car with the baby seat) or whether my spouse is (in which case I take the car without the baby seat). Both car registrations are on the permit.

I ignored the Notice and received a follow up letter issued by the solicitors acting for the Trust (which manages its own car park) - I had hoped that the Trust was only issuing BCNs as a deterrent. In my response I pointed out that I was a staff member, had paid for a permit and had permission to park in the staff car park, that the permit was issued for two cars and that in carrying out the duties required of me by the Trust as my employer - in particular unsociable and out-of-hours shifts - I had a reasonable explanation for why it was not fully practicable to transfer the permit between household cars. I also pointed out that I had paid a full and reasonable agreed amount for parking, and that displaying or not displaying the permit did not materially change the costs I had already covered, and so were an unjustifiable charge.

The response I received told me I 'had been unsuccessful' in my appeal because it is the permit holder's responsibility to ensure the permit is on display.

Shortly after I received County Court papers for an Unpaid breach of contract notice of £50 plus interest totalling £135.68 (including court fee and costs). The Particulars are brief and I suspect generic aimed at a non-permit holder: I parked on Claimant's premises which is private land and entered into a contract according to displayed T&Cs and was issued with a BCN stating breach of condition "Vehicle parked in staff car park but not displaying permit or ticket". There is no reference to the information provided in my letter, and it may be that it was prepared prior to full assimilation of my specific points, though there was a week between my response and the papers being issued.

I have submitted the Acknowledgement of Service, but need to submit a defence. I have also responded to the Trust again reiterating my points, and my willingness to defend the claim, as well as expressing my frustration that the Trust has pursued unjustified costs from its employees, and pointed out the particularly ludicrous operational and cost deficit the Trust will realise if it has to face its own frontline employees in court to 'recoup' £50 but losing many times that in wages and productivity. My next step is to go via senior management to have the claim cancelled, but I suspect I need to submit a defence before that's done.

When constructing my defence some of the more common arguments (keeper v driver, disputing the validity of the contract, the subsequent wording and process of LBA) don't really apply.

My main (lay) argument is that I had paid for permission to park on my employer's private land and that the charges claimed by the landowner for not displaying a permit are an unjustified charge disproportionate to the (zero) extra damages incurred, and that the requirement by the Trust to display one permit issued for two cars is not practicable especially given the particular circumstances (i.e. late and unsociable hours) when carrying out the duties of employment agreed with the Trust.

I have not seen examples that I can cite, and so would be very grateful if anyone can signpost me to precedents or even clarify for me what line of argument is - and isn't - worthwhile taking.

Thanks so much

Jordan

Coupon-mad

I ignored the Notice and received a follow up letter issued by the solicitors acting for the Trust (which manages its own car park)

It's not Aintree is it? Notoriously awful punitive regime, contrary to the Government policy. Haven't seen them feature for months!

My main (lay) argument is that I had paid for permission to park on my employer's private land and that the charges claimed by the landowner for not displaying a permit are an unjustified charge disproportionate to the (zero) extra damages incurred,

I have not seen examples that I can cite,

You won't see examples using the argument in bold, due to the infinite wisdom of elderly (exceedingly rich) Judges at the Supreme Court, who decided in 2015 in ParkingEye v Beavis, that 'sum not related to any loss' is not a defence. So that's out the window and to try to argue it would hand them an advantage, because they can then wave the Beavis case in your face and the Judge will lap it up.

and that the requirement by the Trust to display one permit issued for two cars is not practicable especially given the particular circumstances (i.e. late and unsociable hours) when carrying out the duties of employment agreed with the Trust.

You could argue that as one point, distinguishing your case as far away from the retail park scenario in Beavis as you can (you need to read the Judgment).

And that the parking charge was never agreed...for example, did the permit come with terms which stated that you would be entering into a contractual agreement to pay £50 and under what circumstances? If not, then you could argue there was no contract, no agreement on terms (unlike in Beavis).

You could also take photos of the signs to get evidence. e.g. small print not readable from parking bays? terms unreadable? Pakring charge itself (£50) buried in small print not in large lettering? Any signs obscured by trees, round the corner on a wall, hidden? UNLIT?? Get proof and in the same lighting/weather conditions as that day.

The Beavis case signs were considered clear:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

So, at the hearing you would be looking to show that yours and your permit paperwork were NOT adequate notice. You do not need these photos appended in your defence yet but you will do later. What's needed now is to cover the points you need to mention, so you can later expand on them at evidence stage (before court hearing).

Redx

the trust should also be following the NHS guidelines issued by the long term health secretary Jeremy Clark some 2.5 YEARS ago

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

read what that document says in relation to your predicament and use it as part of any defence

the trust needs to move into the 21st century and have all VRM details on computer as a "whitelist" as well as any old fashioned 15th century paper "permits" , or issue 2 permits , one for each vehicle (how hard can it be ? I ask myself forlornly)

so your complaints to the trust should highlight ALL of the above and be asking WHY they are not following their paymasters guidelines ?