ParkingEye/Hospital Carpark - County Court Claim defence

Eric9

Hello,
I'm new here and really hoping I can get some help.  I've recently received Court papers and have done the AOS.  I've been searching for similar cases on this forum but couldn't find any whereby ParkingEye specifically confirmed in their Claim Description that the Defendant decided not to take advantage of the POPLA appeals process when in fact this is wrong as I did go through POPLA.  With this specifically in mind, I didn't know what to do from here as PE have got this info wrong and the SAR request confirms PE knew outcome from POPLA so they've overlooked this.  Do I go to PE solicitor who has signed the Court Papers now and inform they made this mistake or do I put this mistake in as part of my defence (which I'm hoping I can get some help with) as it's complicated? 

Just as a bit of background info, this carpark used to be ticket / barrier operated, but these parking machines from the old system were still in place after ParkingEye took over in late 2017 and the old machines were removed middle of last year, ie 20 months later.  When we attended for an emergency A&E appnt. last year, the old ticket disp machines had covers over them and we thought were temporarily out of order, then week or so later I received ParkingEye PCN.   Was completely shocked as had no idea ANPR in use and thought this very unfair as there were no signs on old covered ticket disp machines to say ANPR in operation, thus we thought payment not possible on the day. Appealed to PE but this was refused, so went to POPLA.  In POPLA pack this contained photographs of the carpark entrance with signs having good ANPR signage (which I know are BPA compliant templates) as I've seen these particular ANPR signs on the forums somewhere, but at the actual carpark entrance itself, these signs aren't there as were replaced by very similar ANPR signs, except the words are much smaller so are hard to read.  

I complained to POPLA that the ANPR signs in the Evidence File showing signage at the carpark entrance weren't the same as the ANPR signs at the site itself, explaining the words on this replacement ANPR sign are much smaller and don't comply with BPA COP Appendix B on text size of signs at the carpark entrance and POPLA Complaints decision outcome was that there was more information on the replacement sign.  Apparently the replacement ANPR sign with the smaller text size was intended to be placed on the old ticket dispensing machines (as shown on the Sign Type, Allocation and Size document in Evidence Pack) but this didn't happen.  If the ANPR sign had been installed as per the Evidence Pack documentation, we would have been close enough to the ANPR sign to be able to read the small text informing all about ANPR being in operation so would have been able to pay the £2.50 car park charge.

Another carpark user (who posted on this site) was taken to the Small Claims Court by ParkingEye at this same hospital and they apparently won their case when the Judge was shown other carpark users forum reviews and a photo of Ticket Disp Machine.  The Judge ruled against ParkingEye saying there should have been a sign on the old machines to say a new ANPR system was now in operation.  I've not been able to inform POPLA that the replacement ANPR sign was intended to be placed on the old ticket dispensing machine, but instead was placed on the signage poles and concrete post because I was told by the call handler I'd reached end of the POPLA Appeals process.  I can't believe I'm being taken to the Small Claims Court for this and don't want to have to pay when I've done nothing wrong. 

I should have gone to PALS but when I first received ParkingEye's PCN, I was told by email to first appeal to PE, then go back to PALS.  I was too busy with POPLA at that time when it all got complicated (as explained above) so I didn't go back to PALS.  Could I get some help please with my Court Defence and apologies for this being so long.  Hope I've explained this all OK. Thanks.

KeithP

Eric9 said:

I've recently received Court papers and have done the AOS.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Eric9

Hi, Issue Date was 10 August and I submitted AOL on 15 August

Redx

landowner authority and that signage will be the crucial factors here

you should read the hidden keypad defence in the newbies thread and adapt it to suit this particular case, emphasising the issues on signage etc

remember that at this stage no exhibits or witness statements are submitted , they come later on

also read that winning case and see if you can add anything they wrote too , plus name the car park and hospital so we can check for more info

its a shame you didnt take it up more forcefully with PALS at the beginning !!

post the proposed draft below for critique

Eric9

Thanks RedX for your post.  Now I've got a starting point -  I'll try and get my first draft Defence attempt together by end of week

KeithP

Eric9 said:

Hi, Issue Date was 10 August and I submitted AOL on 15 August

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th September 2020 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Umkomaas

There are some PE defence examples linked in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post. Use those as your guide to developing your own. 

Coupon-mad

The POPLA issue being misstated on the POC is something and nothing - mention it in one line as an aside.  It should be easy enough to copy one of the P/Eye example defences and add stuff about the NHS Car Parking Principles (much more important than POPLA!).

#How about searching the forum or Googling:

ParkingEye defence NHS Principles true

Eric9

Hi Everyone,
Thanks to you all for helping me with all your advice above.  I've made a start, basing Defence on PE hidden keypad.  I didn't push with PALS previously as was busy with POPLA and also was / am getting info together ready to make Formal Complaint to Trust via FOI requests which I'm still awaiting final responses to.  What's happened to us at Grafton St Car Park - Manchester Royal Infirmary has happened to many others when barriers / ticket machines were there. Will get back to my Defence.  Thanks Again Everyone and will keep an eye on my calendar .. 14/9 .. thanks for working this out Keith P.

Eric9

Hi,
I've just finished the first attempt at a Defence.  Really sorry it's very long and it's complicated.  Would really appreciate some guidance on what could be better, what needs changing and if the Defence is along the right lines.  It there's anything which needs adding or taking out, then I'd really appreciate any advice.  I'm still waiting for a couple of replies back from the Trust which will be clear as I've highlighted in yellow where I'm waiting for final responses.  

Thanks everyone

Umkomaas

Really sorry it's very long and it's complicated.

Simply in terms of length - it is almost 9,000 words, far too long and disproportionately so for a £100 parking charge. You need to ensure you don't alienate the Judge before you even start. 

I don't have the hours needed to read it and pick it apart, but some pointers:

Did you look at the PE defences linked in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post, and used these as a base?  Also, have you seen the model defence provided by legally qualified and highly experienced in fighting private parking charges - bargepole? You might want to weigh your current draft against his expert advice. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74674865&postcount=24

The Defence should be a relatively short document outlining the failings of the Claimant's case on legal and technical points. 

Any evidence, along with the 'story' of the event should not be included in the Defence, but should come later at the Witness Statement stage.