ParkingEye/Hospital Carpark - County Court Claim defence

D_P_Dance

PE signs have been criticised by judges, read this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

Also this,

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

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, and an independent appeals service will be set up,

opefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Eric9

Hi 
Thanks for replying so quickly and giving me your advice.  My Defence has got very long and my trouble is I'm not sure what is important, needing to be included and what isn't.  Although it's almost unrecogniseable now, my Defence is based on the "Hidden keypad" defence and I've added in the NHS part as well.  I've put these standard bits in a bright blue surround and posted this again, so the Bright Blue surround is what's from the standard Defence and everything else is not.
Again, I'm sorry it is so long.  Perhaps it would be better if I just skim over the parts I added in so it's easier for you to look over.  Here goes.

(Point 3.11)   An FOI request response suggests there wasn't a contract in place between Trust and ParkingEye on date of my parking event and I'm awaiting a final answer from Trust after ICO got involved.  

(Point 3.12)  For my parking event, there were old parking machines stood at the entrance which had no signs on and looked out of order.  I asked Trust why had they  been stood at entrance for 20 months before finally being removed June 2019.  Trust hasn't given proper explanation, again ICO got involved and waiting to hear.

(Point 3.13 & 3.14) I asked the Trust why the original ParkingEye BPA Approved template ANPR sign was replaced with a second version of this sign which looked the same except the text measured 12mm in height, instead of 20mm.  I'd noticed the camera icon of the replacement sign was the Trust's camera sign icon, not ParkingEyes and again was awaiting final response.

(Point 3.15) I'd asked the Trust about Contract in place between Trust and ParkingEye and what clauses it covered, compared to other Trusts and it became evident this "Contract" was substandard as didn't provide for dedicated NHS manager and would not monitor all appeals and complaints.

(Point 3.2)  The ANPR signs were installed incorrectly as those meant for the ticket dispensing machines were installed to replace original standard ANPR template signs, which meant there were no ANPR signs at all which could be read.  I said if Contract had allowed for dedicated NHS Manager, these mistakes would have been picked up.  Even now, the sub-standard ANPR signs are at the site whereby text is too small to read.

(Point 4)  This was about a traffic diversion being in place which altered the positioning of the entrance ANPR signs which meant signs previously viewable now couldn't be viewed as they were too high, being over 2 metres.  Not safe to be driving towards a concrete post and looking up at signs.  Also, only viewable ANPR sign had text too small to read as already explained.

(Points 4.2)  I was going through all signs in carpark and why they weren't noticed by me on the day and I suppose to sum up, this was because as the old parking system's machines were all still at the site, I was convinced they were temporarily out of order, so subconsciously might have seen Payment Machines, Terms & Conditions signs but I took no notice as wasn't aware ANPR was in place as saw no signs.

(Point 5)  Trust carried out a Car Park signage review and one recommendation was to include information about ANPR being in place onto a "huge sign".  This didn't happen and if it had, would have known ANPR in operation.

(Point 6)  Claimant must have issued 100's of PCN's at the site, but signage was not improved and people kept being issued with PCN's, particularly 1st time visitors.

(Points 7, 8 & 9) I'd explained as old machines in place and no mention of ANPR being in use on larger signs which were readable, message that ParkingEye had taken over wasn't getting through to first time visitors.  I'd shown how tiny text was on Terms & Conditions sign which explained ParkingEye had taken over, which I wouldn't be able to read, even with 20/20 vision.
Also, I explained as carpark exit was so dark, you didn't see the dark "ParkingEye" sign and also some of signs on exit machinery weren't readable as they'd half fallen off and had folded down on themselves.

(Point 10)  Looking at it, this is the same as Point 3.2 except I added in that if signs had all been installed correctly, would have known ANPR was in operation, as sign would have been on old ticket disp machine, so would have been readable, even when text size only 12mm.

(Point 11)  Sorry, it is excessive that I demonstrated the text size difference between the original 20mm text of original ANPR sign and 12mm text of replacement sign.

(Point 12) Again, there's a lot of repetition, sorry, but did say Contract confirmed ParkingEye would attend regular meetings with the Trust, as required, so why wasn't the signage rectified as up until ticket disp machines were removed, the intended ANPR sign was never installed on it.

(Point 13) This is from standard hidden keypad defence.

(Point 14) This was about ParkingEye not knowing full facts of my case, I had gone through POPLA Appeals process, despite ParkingEye knowing this, they haven't looked properly at my case before issuing County Court proceedings.

(Point 15)  This is originally from standard hidden keypad defence but I've extended it a bit to say I did approach Trust originally but then went down FOI route trying to get more info about Contract which has brought me to this point, whereby County Court proceedings are now being brought.

(Point 16)  This was saying how POPLA process has been unfair as ParkingEye submitted old photographs of carpark entrance which showed how it would have looked if signage had been installed correctly.  The signage at the carpark entrance in the photos was not at the carpark itself.  The photos showed ANPR signs with 20mm text, whereas in reality there were replacement signs (meant for ticket disp machines) whereby signs at site had text 12mm high.  (This was 1st procedural error and POPLA process only allows for one complaint.)

(Point 17)  This was saying a 2nd procedural error had occured and POPLA wouldn't even take my call.  The POPLA response was that the replacement ANPR sign with 12mm text carried more information on the use of ANPR than the original ANPR sign, so they were still refusing my appeal.  The 2nd procedural error was that this replacement ANPR sign had been installed incorrectly on signage pole and concrete post which POPLA wouldn't have been aware of as they didn't have up to date photos of the carpark entrance showing the carpark scene.  POPLA would have believed, on looking at the POPLA evidence file, the replacement ANPR sign had been installed on the ticket disp machine but this was not the case.  If it had been the case, I would have been informed ANPR was in operation.

(Points 18 & 19)  I got a bit carried away giving examples whereby the POPLA Assessors were thorough and had one of these other assessor have dealt with my case, the outcome would have been different and the appeal would have been allowed.

(Points 20)  This explained about the other carpark user who'd won their case when they presented the Judge with photograph and Forum reviews so judge could see ticket disp machine didn't have an ANPR sign on it.

(Point 20.1) Explained ParkingEye's response was minimal.  I'd provided good evidence and there is no accountability for the decisions they make.

(Point 21)  I was putting my case that in a similar way to the September 2019 judge, could I bring my forum reviews and photos to illustrate what has happened to me, has happened to many others before me and ParkingEye never did anything about it until June 2019 when old machines were finally removed which had been confusing everyone.

Point 21.4 - I'd put together a table showing people's comments, very skeletal, but I can see it's still too long.  To summarise, what the people said about the carpark entrance and confusion around the old machines being at the entrance with no signage at all to explain ANPR was in operation.  
- People appeared to start being issued with Parking Charge Notices from beginning of December 2017 whereby there were many online reviews left by people complaining about the old machines and no ANPR signs, then they'd received PCN's through the post.  
- There was a photograph taken of the carpark entrance by 2 members of the public in January and February 2018 which showed there were only "P" signs on poles, no ANPR signage at all.
-  One person had put in their review "Apparently there is a sign" and they'd visited carpark in January 2018 but had had their Appeals at both ParkingEye and POPLA rejected.  There must have been photographs in their Evidence file showing signage at the carpark entrance in Jan 2018 for the POPLA case to be rejected, but why were all these people saying there were no signs?
- The negative reviews in the same vein continued, the last one being posted after someone visited in 15/3/2018, then photographs of the carpark entrance were taken on 22/3/2018 used in POPLA's Evidence file, showing ANPR BPA template signs on the signage poles, on concrete post and on barrier bases.  
- There was a carpark user who visited on 1 April 2018 who'd received a PCN and they explained when they visited there were no signs to explain how to pay.  Where had the signs gone?  There were many other reviews whereby people confirmed they used the carpark, believing the system was out of order, then they received a PCN from ParkingEye, particularly 1st time visitors.
- There was a photograph taken on 11 October 2018 from "Robert Bilton" on behalf of "AccessAble" as the accompanying review was dated 11 October 2018.  This showed there were no signage poles, no signs at all, no white covers on the old parking machines.  At first, I thought this must be an old photograph of the site, but no, "Robert Bilton" explained in his review that ANPR was now in operation and the barrier posts had been removed.   This photograph is definitely authentic, but why were there no ParkingEye signs at the carpark, at this time.  NB  The Trust confirmed the initial "Contract"  was for one year, running from 20/11/2017 until 19/11/2018, however, the Notice on a Payment Machine stated "ParkingEye were coming soon, ie on 11 October 2017".  It would make sense that all the ParkingEye signs were removed from the entrance on 11 October 2018, if the Contract had expired on 10 October 2017, but this question has not been asked as I was about to contact the Trust to complain, but have received these County Court proceedings.  I know all this won't be going in my Defence but just wanted to explain the situation as there may be something which needs to go in the Defence about information I have provided here, if that's appropriate.
On 12 November 2018 a carpark user mentioned the new ANPR sign (the replacement sign with 12mm text) at carpark entrance.  On 30 November 2018 two photographs were taken showing replacement ANPR sign on barrier base and on signage pole, ie not on ticket disp machines / "barrier posts".  Why weren't original ANPR signs put back as per photos taken on 22 March 2018, with replacement ANPR signs on ticket disp machines.  

The rest of my "Defence" is based on the hidden keypad defence so hope this is all OK.

I am sorry this is still long but just wanted to get across all the facts and then I'd really appreciate help with putting together a really strong Defence and I will approach my MP, Kate Green who has helped me in the past.  Apologies, I do tend to put too much in and need to be pulled back when I get carried away.  Hope you can help me from here.  I've attached again copy of my Defence where I've put in the Standard Template parts in bright blue surrounding highlight.

Thanks everyone

Eric9

Hello everyone, Sorry, got one thing wrong. Just to make sure everything's accurate: The Notice on the old machine said ParkingEye were coming soon, ie  on Monday 9th October 2017, but not sure re this as Trust confirmed the start of operations was 20 November 2017, then the initial Contract was for 12 months, ie until 19 November 2018. There was an interim period where a Contract was not in place and ICO have asked the Trust regarding this and am waiting for reply. There was an official extension which came in, as per what I put in my Defence.  Thanks Everyone. 

Umkomaas

That's another 2,000+ words of detail to plough through. I think you might be asking a tad too much of regular volunteers (there's only two or three actually prepared to analyse and advise in detail on defences ) to read all you've placed before the forum - in addition to the other (minimum of) 50, often up to 100, separate cases demanding attention, assimilation, and ensuing advice and guidance ..... every day of the week. 

Le_Kirk

As stated by others, that is really long.  A defence is a series of technical/legal arguments setting out the arguments against the Particulars of Claim issued by the parking company. It would normally be nearer to 18 paragraphs not 18 pages.  Did you see the standard defences in the NEWBIE sticky?  There are at least two in there for ParkingEye and one specifically about a hidden keypad.  When it comes time to submit your witness statement (WS) that is when you go into chapter on verse with evidence to back up your defence.  A WS is a narrative and in that, you can put the vast majority of what you have put in your defence.

For my parking event, there were old parking machines stood standing at the entrance

nosferatu1001

If your defence is over a cuople of pages, its likely too long. 
Secondly, if you dont understand it, how will you argue it?

Eric9

Hello,
I've gone back to the drawing board and hope I'm getting a bit closer to how a Defence should look.  I appreciate all your comments and guidance.  Thanks everyone for taking time to look at my Defence 

Eric9

Hello
I've done another draft of my Defence and I'm really hoping this is now looking like it's getting there.  It's still long - down to 6 pages but I'd be happy for parts to be chopped out.  It's now based on many variations of other people's Defences so I'm hoping it's OK.  I'd really appreciate some advice and guidance.  Thanks for your time everyone. 

Redx

I have not read it as I am not on a laptop , but it's been said on here by people like Bargepole that it should fit on an A4 , so even if we assume both sides are used it's a third of 6 pages

Check the template defence for page count and word count , compare the results to your own defence draft

Personally I would never read a 6 page defence and few if any on here would either , it's not a m#rder trial , it's a PCN invoice going to court , small claims court

Short and concise is the premise and objective here , save the stories for the WS

The points in your defence should address the POC and circumstances that raised it , plus your legal reasons why you are not liable for the PCN and claim

Eric9

Thanks Redx for your quick response.  I'll go back over the document and compare it with others.  There might be other ways to cut it right down and perhaps there might be paragraphs which shouldn't be there at all.  I'll look at it again.  Appreciate your help.  Thanks.