Counterclaim advice needed, please. Claim Form Received from Northampton CCBC. Bizarre PCN case!

Le_Kirk

JungTheForeman wrote: »

I'm in the process of moving house, completing tomorrow. It's been a very stressful time.

Don't forget to inform everyone involved of your new address, especially the DVLA (licence AND V5C).

JungTheForeman

MistyZ wrote: »

Are there any colleagues who have not yet paid? If so, draft a letter of complaint to the hospital board and ask those colleagues if they'd like to sign it with you. You have expressed yourself strongly and convincingly here so why not give it a go?

Scamming NHS staff without the slightest pretext? My god. How low can these low-life get.

Thanks very much for your supportive words, MistyZ. Over the past 18 months or so, there have been far too many instances of ridiculous PCNs in this car park to mention. Only this week, one particular colleague of mine received a PCN for displaying her valid permit on the dashboard rather than stuck on the windscreen. It seems that the poor Britannia ticketer was blinded by the sun as he attempted to check it!

The problem seems to be that the vast majority are completely unaware of the 'don't pay but don't ignore' advice offered here (I was before I found this forum). Most of my colleagues are either seduced by the pay within 14 days 'offer' or become terrified when the debt collector letters begin arriving. Hence, Britannia have become increasingly blas! and carefree when it comes to issuing spurious PCNs in this particular car park.

As regards us ganging together and approaching the hospital management: Trust me; the hospital management are bombarded with complaints. Unfortunately, mention the words 'car park' or 'Britannia' and they turn their backs and completely ignore it. Draw your own conclusions!

At the end of the day, those of us with scruples and conscience could never even begin to comprehend the mindset of those without. I would much rather be one of us than one of them.

JungTheForeman

Hello again experts. Yes, I know I've left this quite late, but, as mentioned previously, a stressful house move has distracted me over the past month. Despite KeithP's curt and unnecessary comment a couple of days ago, I would very much welcome your thoughts on my alternative defence below:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD T/A BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in an allocated bay at XXXX Hospital – XXXX car park.

3. The Defendant has been a XXXX at XXXX Hospital NHS Trust for over 30 years, and has parked her vehicle legitimately in the car park mentioned in the Particulars of Claim (XXXX) during almost every working shift throughout this 30-year period. In order to do so, the Defendant pays £30.00 per month. This £30.00 charge is deducted from the Defendant’s monthly salary, and, for the benefit of the Court, the Defendant can produce her salary slip from July 2017, clearly showing the £30.00 deduction. This covers the date of the alleged contravention.

4. For the majority of the Defendant’s working career at XXXX Hospital NHS Trust, the XXXX car park was managed by the hospital. In paying £30.00 per month, the Defendant is issued with a key card and a valid parking permit (on a yearly basis). The XXXX car park always used to operate on a barrier entry system, whereby hospital staff could gain entrance only by flashing their key card at the barrier. Throughout all the years of being managed by the hospital, the Defendant cannot recall a single issue of concern relating to use of the car park in question.

5. As the Defendant recalls, the Claimant assumed management of the XXXX car park in early 2017. During this transition period, the car park was redundant as a car park. Instead, XXXX Hospital staff members with valid permits were granted permission to park at the XXXX car park, located an approximate one kilometre walk away from the hospital.

6. Many staff became uncomfortable with this arrangement, particularly female staff working either late shifts or night shifts. Complaints were raised and, as a result, those staff members working either late shifts or night shifts were allowed to resume parking their vehicles in the XXXX car park. As the Defendant recalls, this compromise was sanctioned by both XXXX (Acute Midwifery Matron, at the time) and XXXX (Car Parks Manager). However, despite being sanctioned and agreed, the Claimant had not yet issued its new valid parking permits. Consequently, the Defendant, along with dozens of her colleagues, continued to display the valid parking permit issued by the hospital. It must be noted that the £30.00 per month parking charge continued to be deducted from the Defendant’s salary throughout this entire period.

7. Once the Defendant had resumed parking her vehicle in the XXXX car park, now under the management of the Claimant, she requested a new valid parking permit on numerous occasions. It must be noted that the Defendant is only able to display a valid parking permit if the Claimant dutifully issues the Defendant with one to display. The Defendant asserts that this should be a first priority of an incoming management company. However, in this instance, it most certainly was not. Throughout a career of over 30 years so far, the Defendant has diligently displayed a valid parking permit. Had the Claimant issued the Defendant with a new valid parking permit, she would have, of course, displayed it on her vehicle.

8. Should the Claimant wish to argue that the Defendant had indeed been issued with a new valid parking permit at the time of the alleged contravention, then the Claimant is put to strict proof as to exactly when and how this new valid parking permit was issued to the Defendant. Certainly, the £30.00 monthly car parking charge continued to be deducted from the Defendant’s salary.

9. As the Defendant recalls, a new valid parking permit was finally issued to the Defendant only in September of 2017. Hence, as well as on the date of the alleged contravention, the Defendant had also displayed a supposedly invalid parking permit during numerous working shifts following the date of the alleged contravention. The Defendant asserts that, since a new valid parking permit had not yet been issued by the Claimant, the old permit (cited in photographic evidence) should be deemed by the Court as valid.

10. The Defendant also asserts that, rather than issuing a PCN, the Claimant only needed to cross-reference the Defendant’s vehicle registration number with the databases held by both the Car Parks Manager and the hospital management. In doing so, the Claimant would have quickly ascertained that the Defendant had paid her £30.00 monthly car parking charge, and was therefore parked legitimately.

11. On the date of the alleged contravention, many of the Defendant’s colleagues also received similar PCNs on their vehicles, due to the fact that the Claimant had not yet issued them with new valid parking permits.

12. For decades, under the management of the hospital, XXXX was a well-run and trouble-free car park. Only since the Claimant assumed management have problems persistently arisen. Despite being legitimately parked, almost all of the Defendant’s colleagues have received at least one PCN over the past two years. Amongst us hard-working NHS nurses, ‘parking ticket Thursday’ has become a jocular phrase in conversation. NHS staff members now dread returning to their vehicles after a working shift, constantly fearing that they might find a PCN attached. The Defendant cannot remember the last time she was required to use her key card to pass through the entry barrier. The barrier seems to be permanently raised nowadays, almost as an open invitation to unsuspecting motorists to enter this staff car park and face the consequences. The Defendant asserts that good car park management should include the maintenance of the barrier entry system to the staff car park in question.

13. In summary, the Defendant directs the Court towards her salary slip of July 2017, clearly showing a £30.00 deduction for car parking, and towards the fact that she has legitimately parked her vehicle in XXXX car park throughout her entire working career. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

JungTheForeman

Regarding sending my defence as an email (PDF attachment), I have been given two addresses:

CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Is one preferable to the other, or will both reach the same department anyway?

Umkomaas

JungTheForeman wrote: »

Regarding sending my defence as an email (PDF attachment), I have been given two addresses:

CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Is one preferable to the other, or will both reach the same department anyway?

Check KeithP’s advice in post #13.

Coupon-mad

I like that as a witness statement (useful for you for later as you've practically done it!) but it goes into too much detail/repetition as a defence, and completely omits the usual:

- no landowner authority
- £60 can't be added as it's made up out of thin air
- signs not capable of forming a contract

and omits everything I told you to include, here:

defend as driver with the above facts as your main defence (see PACE v Lengyel in the Parking Prankster's case law pages, for the 'permit scheme void for impossibility' argument) you can still add that:

Even in cases where the POFA is not being relied upon, the pre-requisites of that statute are a useful test for the validity of parking charges on private land; namely that there was a lack of:

- relevant contract
- relevant obligation
- adequate notice of the sum of the parking charge.

AND that the Beavis case is fully distinguished due to a lack of legitimate interest and commercial justification in penalising working Doctors, nurses and other staff for not displaying a permit (or not making a payment, which is a farcical allegation as staff surely didn't have to pay?) due to Britannia's own inaction in not supplying permits in a timely manner.

The words above are important to have in the defence and you can't let them off on signs, landowner authority or the £60 made up 'damages' and other add-ons!

JungTheForeman

Thanks very much, Coupon-mad...

Due to spending the next couple of days with family, and having only limited access to a printer / scanner, I submitted my defence yesterday afternoon, via email as advised.

However, before doing so, I did tag on the various stock paragraphs from my first draft, including:

"Furthermore, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

Furthermore, the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £85.00. The Particulars of Claim includes an additional £60.00, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery."

Also, I couldn't resist adding something about the POFA requirement:

14. Furthermore, the Defendant respectfully asks the Court to note that while the alleged parking contravention (Notice to Driver) occurred on 20 July 2017, the actual Parking Charge Notice (Notice to Keeper) was not issued to the Defendant until 9 November 2017. This constitutes a time lapse of more than 110 days, well outside the 57 day period dictated by The Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 8(5).

Maybe I should have added a little more 'legal' meat to the bone, but with all the evidence I have (including witnesses), I am hopeful of being able to persuade a Court.

Incidentally, this very PCN was featured by Martin Lewis on ITV's This Morning back in 2017. Somewhat ironically, his advice was very different to the advice offered by the experts here. You can watch part of it here:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXV2sA9hFmk/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1mvfe7o9g760c

Pay without prejudice, and then defend from there. What are your thoughts regarding this?

Manxman_in_exile

Sorry - can't help with the intricacies of private parking but I was a NHS manager for over 20 years.


Whom have you complained to within your trust's management? Have you (and your colleagues?) actually asked the trust, given all the circumstances you have detailed above, to get the tickets cancelled?


I would complain to your union (assuming you are in one) and I would also check out the staff governors on your trust's intranet and complain to all of them. As I say, I'm no parking expert, but your argument seems pretty good to me.


(NB - don't allow my comments to distract you from the advice given by more knowledgeable posters on this board - I'm only suggesting other ways of taking it up with your trust's management. It may be the manager(s) you've raised this with do not realise they can cancel the tickets).


If you succeed down the management route, I'd suggest that the people who've already paid should complain too. It's difficult enough working in the NHS without this unnecessary hassle!


EDIT: Caveat - of course only you can decide how far above the parapet you want to stick your head concerning management. I often wished I'd had a steel helmet!

nigelbb

Your contract for parking is with the Trust as you pay them for your permit. Check the T&Cs you agreed to when you got your parking permit. You cannot have entered into a contract with Britannia as they cannot offer anything as you already have the right to park given by the Trust. It’s similar to the case of a leaseholder or tenant in residential parking cases where a parking space is part of the lease & there can be no derogation from grant. .

Any breach of the parking contract leading to a charge would be payable to the Trust not to Britannia.

Coupon-mad

JungTheForeman wrote: »

Incidentally, this very PCN was featured by Martin Lewis on ITV's This Morning back in 2017. Somewhat ironically, his advice was very different to the advice offered by the experts here. You can watch part of it here:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXV2sA9hFmk/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1mvfe7o9g760c

Pay without prejudice, and then defend from there. What are your thoughts regarding this?

Idiotic advice. You can't pay without prejudice and still defend.