County Court Claim

mercuteio

Thanks for the quick reply, Keith! Ok, letter attached (sorry for delay - was just removing any identifiable information!)

To: Hospital PALS Service
Email Subject Heading: URGENT: Response Required Within 48 Hours


Dear Sir,

My name is (name) and I am a doctor employed by (hospital trust name). I am writing to urgently request that you cancel two parking charges with immediate effect that were placed on a car for which I am the registered keeper (vehicle registration *******) in (car park name), which I understand to be land owned by the hospital. These parking charges are dated 29th January 2019 and (need to check second date), and are of the value of £160 each. Whilst letters from the Private Parking Company have been received for both parking charges, I have been prompted to take urgent action now because I have recently received a County Court Claim for the parking charge dated 29th January 2019 - this is for the value of £185, which includes both the parking charge and associated court costs. Having taken legal advice (that is, having read this forum), I am now aware that it is within your power to cancel these charges, and am writing to request that this action is instituted with immediate effect for both parking charges. I have been advised that my legal defence is extremely strong, and therefore if the hospital chooses to maintain both parking charges, and the associated court proceedings which are currently in process, then I am absolutely intent on defending the claim in court.

On both of the occasions for which parking charges were received, airway emergencies were taking place which required immediate intervention, and I was one of the more senior doctors on-call for the relevant teams in charge of managing such emergencies. As you will no doubt be aware, there is a lengthy waiting list for staff parking permits, for which I am still waiting for one, but until a permit has been issued then cars cannot access the barrier-protected staff car parks. Therefore, in an emergency, (car park name) is one of the few places where a car can be parked on the hospital grounds as there is no barrier, and this is the closest accessible car park to the area of the hospital I needed to be on both occasions.

Despite notes placed in the car indicating that a permit was awaited, parking charge notices were still placed. Having received the first one on 29th January 2019, on the second occasion the note went so far as to specify that an emergency was taking place, but a parking charge notice was still placed despite this.

Having revisited the site, I should stress also that the signs within the car park are extremely confusing, with some indicating that it is a staff car park, whilst others indicate it is for staff of a nearby company. Several ticket machines state that the tickets are issued by “(name of hospital)” at one parking charge rate, whilst others indicate that the tickets are issued by “(name of car park)” at a different parking charge rate. Furthermore, three different signs are on display within the same car park indicating that it is managed by three different Private Parking Companies - Vehicle Control Services Ltd, First Parking LLP and ****(initials of car park) Ltd. It is therefore entirely unclear who is allowed to park within the car park and who is not.

Irrespective of the confusing signs, however, I am appalled that in the context of an emergency - particularly an airway emergency, which is the highest priority emergency of any that takes place within the hospital and requires the most immediate and urgent attention - parking charges have not only been issued, but also allowed to progress to the point of a County Court Claim.

As I have stated, if the hospital chooses not to cancel these charges then I will proceed to defend these in court. This represents an extraordinary hassle for all involved, and it is beyond belief that an employee of the hospital should find themselves in court with representatives of the hospital and/or its associated companies for parking in the only accessible car park, having not been issued with a permit due to the hospital’s own restrictions on permit issuances, simply for trying to attend to a patient requiring immediate emergency treatment, without which death would be inevitable.

I would therefore be very grateful if the hospital would kindly cancel both of these parking charges with immediate effect. If the hospital chooses not to do this, then I still require a reply within 48 hours to inform me of this decision, as I will need to submit a formal legal defence, for which the deadline is next week.

Regards,
(name)

mercuteio

Morning all,

Planning to send the email I posted last night (just above this post) this morning. Anyone got any suggestions/additions/things to remove? Will send in about half an hour if I don't hear back from anyone.

Does anyone have any idea how long PALS tend to take to respond to these things? Am conscious that my defence will need to be submitted by Monday 19th August, so practically I think it should be written by about Wednesday next week, but am hoping that if they respond by the end of tomorrow and cancel the charges then maybe I can save myself the hours of researching defence arguments.

Many thanks!

Le_Kirk

As you will no doubt be aware, there is a lengthy waiting list for staff parking permits, for which I am still waiting for one

Better as: -

As you will no doubt be aware, there is a lengthy waiting list for staff parking permits, for which I am still waiting[strike] for one[/strike]

Also don't finish formal letters (or emails) with "Regards" Proper sign off is "Yours faithfully" or "Yours sincerely" if writing to a named person.

mercuteio

Thanks Le_Kirk - will adapt now. Wasn't sure if there'd be any corrections based on the argument, but if not, will send off now.

Thanks a lot.

mercuteio

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, and as fatbelly says, please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Hi All,

Got massively overloaded with work stuff since last posting, so had to take a brief hiatus from researching this, and am a little concerned regarding timescales. Claim date was 17th July - I completed AoS within 14 days, so now I have until Monday 19th August to get sorted. Was primarily concerned that I may have to post my defence on Friday (16th) or Saturday (17th) by recorded delivery in order to arrive by Monday, in which case it doesn't give a lot of time for me to research it, write it and respond to reviews and criticisms from yourselves.

However . . . I've just re-read Keith's post, as quoted here. From what Keith's said, it looks to me that I don't have to post anything at all, but instead simply email a signed PDF. Is that correct? If so, then am I correct that I actually have until 4pm on Monday 19th August to click send? Or do I also have to send something by post as well?

Thanks a lot!

KeithP

What I wrote in post #5 above is correct.

mercuteio

KeithP wrote: »

What I wrote in post #5 above is correct.

Thanks Keith. Ok, I'll take it then that nothing needs to be posted additionally. The reason I asked is only that a separate post from Bargepole (see below) indicated always replying by registered post, so wasn't sure if I need to both email and send by post, or if just email will be ok.

bargepole wrote: »

My advice, for what it's worth, is NEVER submit your defence using the MCOL text box. Not only does it restrict what you can put down, but it destroys all the formatting, and splits the text over multiple pages, making it hard for the Judge to read. The last thing you want to do.

You should produce your defence as a Word, or preferably PDF stand-alone document, sent by registered post. It should be headed as follows:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

KNUCKLE-DRAGGERS R US LTD (Claimant)

-and-

FREDDIE FARNESBARNES (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

... and at the end, should say:

"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."

With a signature and date below

Coupon-mad

We always email our defences, not post them now, hence KeithP's advice.

Have you shown us a defence draft yet?

mercuteio

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We always email our defences, not post them now, hence KeithP's advice.

Have you shown us a defence draft yet?

Ah, that's absolutely great, Coupon-mad! No, just starting to research all of your resources tonight, and am aware I'm a bit short on time - that's why I was enquiring about whether or not I need to post or not. If it's just email, then I've got an extra couple of days.

One thing that's a niggling concern, having read a few defences so far, is that they all seem to have made some form of payment/attempt at payment. Key points in relation to my case:

1) It was a Pay & Display car park, but no ticket was displayed in the car

2) It was a medical emergency

3) There is unclear signage.
(I've been trying to work out who owns the car park, but it's not totally clear - I think that it may have previously been owned by the hospital in which I work, but it sounds like it could now be owned by a nearby company that make gambling machines. The upshot is that there are signs which say that the car park is both for NHS staff and not for NHS staff at the same time, and there are three different parking management companies listed on different signs within the same car park, as well as some ticket machines with different parking rates to others, one of which says the name of the hospital, and the others of which do not)

I haven't seen any defences where a ticket has not been bought, so am a little unsure whether that makes the defence untenable, despite being an emergency scenario with unclear signs.

Any thoughts? Or examples like this that I should read?

Thanks a lot!

Coupon-mad

there are signs which say that the car park is both for NHS staff and not for NHS staff at the same time, and there are three different parking management companies listed on different signs within the same car park, as well as some ticket machines with different parking rates to others

Well that would be a main defence point, that there is no certainty as to who is offering the parking contract and what those terms might be, and it would be impossible to comply with or read & make an informed decision about all the differing signs. Even if the driver had been in a position to do so, the doctrine of contra proferentem applies regarding any ambiguity of terms that must be interpreted in law in the way that most favours the consumer, not the trader (Consumer Rights Act 2015).

Then mention the medical emergency in the early facts, then continue with the usual standard points you see in recent defences here this Summer. Show us the draft to comment on.

Search the forum for contra proferentem defence and you should find a few.