NHS Parking ticket court claim - Defence help please

Umkomaas

Do it via a SAR. Here's a thread that commenced when the GDPR first came into operation earlier this summer. It should give you plenty of ideas to progress this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5849784/june-2018-start-of-the-new-ppc-and-dvla-fightback-gdpr-related

NemoII

Hi everyone, just to update you all, I submitted my defence soon after I last posted, and a couple weeks later I got a letter to say Trethowans have decided to discontinue. :rotfl: It just seems like such a scare tactic and as soon as you say you're defending the claim they back out. Anyway, still want to thank you all for your help, and it's probably not that useful since this did not go to court, but for anyone who might find it helpful here was my defence:

DEFENCE

1. I am ---, the defendant in this matter.

2. For the avoidance of doubts, the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration ----, and also admits to being the driver on the dates of --- and ---.

3. The defendant denies all allegations of breach of contract set out by the claimant in the particulars of claim.

4. The defendant was a full time employee of

---

, and had purchased a staff parking permit which was valid on both dates. The Vehicle was parked appropriately in designated staff car parks, with the parking permit visibly displayed in the front window of the vehicle on both occasions.

5. The particulars of claim submitted by the claimant is profoundly lacking in detail regarding the alleged breaches of contract. The only information provided are two identical statements claiming breach of ‘Condition 1’, which was clearly copy and pasted, and there is no clarification on how the conditions were breached. As such, the defendant believes the particulars of claim are not compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules 16.4, and therefore unfairly limits the ability of the defendant to provide a comprehensive defence statement.

6. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person, the defendant respectfully asks the court for permission to amend and/or supplement this defence statement, should the claimant provide further detail to the particulars of claim.

7. To address the allegations of breaching ‘Condition 1, Vehicle not parked wholly in marked bay, parked in restricted or prohibited area (e.g. on double yellow and red line, a verge, fire route, footway or traffic island) or causing an obstruction’:

7.1. The vehicle was parked in staff car parks in an appropriate manner both occasions, but not in a marked bay as there were no markings on the ground. The contract the defendant signed with the claimant on purchasing the parking permit acknowledges that some car parks are not marked with the following statement: ‘1. Parking or waiting must be in authorised areas only and wholly within a marked bay or such an area reserved for parking, as it is recognised some staff car parks are unmarked due to having a temporary surface.’
7.2. The vehicle was not parked in restricted or prohibited areas on either occasions, such as on double yellow and red line, a verge, fire route, footway or traffic island as listed by the claimant.
7.3. The vehicle was not causing an obstruction on either occasions.
7.4. The claimant claims that terms and conditions were ‘prominently displayed’ on the premises. However, the only signs that the defendant saw in the car parks declare that the area is designated for staff parking, and parking is allowed with a valid permit, which the defendant possessed.

8. The defendant is therefore perplexed at the reason for issuing the two parking fines, especially since parking in those exact same spaces the defendant had parked on those two dates is not only permitted to staff members with a parking permit, but is also frequently parked by other motorists. The defendant is able to produce photographic proof of other vehicles parking in the same spaces at approximately the same time of day that the fines were issued, without receiving a parking ticket.

9. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the claimant has artificially inflated the value of the claim by adding purported legal representative’s costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the claimant.

10. In summary, it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no real prospect of success.

I believe all the facts contained in this defence are true.

Umkomaas

Well done. Trethowans can be stubborn, and have been particularly aggressive at Aintree Hospital. When Freedom of Information requests went in, it was obvious that the Trust were expending disproportionate amounts of NHS funds to pursue relatively minuscule (£60-£100) penalties.

Never mind the patients! :cool: