ParkingEye/Hospital Carpark - County Court Claim defence

Eric9

Hello Coupon-mad and 1505-grandad
Thanks so much for taking the time to read through my Defence.  I was so pleased when you said you liked this.  I know it is long. I can't seem to do anything in a short way!!  

I've numbered the paragraphs as suggested and made the corrections.  I also changed the word "hidden" to "illegible" in paragraph 31 as I think this was needed as I was talking about inadequate signage whereas the template I went off was about a hidden keypad.

I've realised I didn't mention the Grafton St carpark case which PE brought to court and lost, which I read about on this site "Forever Frugal" and for that case, the judge was shown the reviews and a photo of the ticket dispensing machine with no sign on it so the judge ruled against PE, stating the old ticket disp machine should have had a sign.  Do you think this point should be included especially as the POPLA Evidence file informed there was an ANPR sign on the ticket machine (but there never was at the site itself).  

I know it's long anyway, but should I include this re FF's case?  Thanks for all your help.  It is so much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

 I know it is long. I can't seem to do anything in a short way!!  

Join the club; I am a woman who can't use ten words when 100 would do!

Yes I would add it.

Do have a final look tomorrow and weed out some repetition and amalgamate similar points to shorten it a bit, if you can.

Fruitcake

Para 4      When following the Diversion signs, motorists would turn a corner then were suddenly embarking on the carpark entrance.

"and suddenly presented with", or "and suddenly arrive at", or "and immediately enter the car park".

6. The Defendant did not choose to not pay for their parkin...

"It was not the case that the defendant chose not to pay for their parking, but that ..."

It was not the case that the defendant chose not to pay ...

There was not any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant, 

There was no misuse ...

7. The Claimant’s Operator Evidence confirmed signage was placed 

"stated that"

10. The Claimant’s Operator Evidence file submitted for the Defendant’s POPLA appeal illustrated that at the carpark entrance,

"implied"

21. ... As an aside, contrary to what the Claimant’s “Particulars of Claim” state in that they have informed the County Court that the Defendant chose not to appeal to POPLA, this is inaccurate ...

"untrue"

25. ... Moreover, the photographic evidence that the Claimant submitted to POPLA, inaccurately informed BPA CoP

"incorrectly"

Redx

Incorrectly informed BPA CoP

Doesn't look grammatically correct to me , so without reading the document I would look for a better flow

Coupon-mad

Please now make a real difference.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

Eric9

Hello Everyone
Thanks so much for taking the time to look so closely at my Defence and for all the advice given on making the corrections which I've now done.  I have tried to condense it down, but have cheated a bit by making the top and bottom margins narrower and the text a bit smaller.  I've added a paragraph about the Grafton St carpark user (Forever Frugal) who PE took to Court and they won on grounds of there needing to be signage on the ticket disp machine.  I'd appreciate any comments and thanks again for everyone's help with this Defence.  Attached is hopefully the final version.   

Coupon-mad

Could you help me with my submissions to the consultations please?  We need all newbies to do their own but of course we are doing our own as well and I want a copy of a claim form that shows not all PPCs add fake debt recovery costs on the left of a N1 claim form. 

 I like your case as an example, because it's also only £70 so I want to use it as an example (without your name and address of course, and cover the claim number).  Can you pm me a photo or scan of page one of the N1 claim form, suitably redacted, asap please?

Eric9

Hi Coupon-mad
Yes, of course.  I’ll do this tomorrow.

Eric9

Hi Everyone
I sent off my Defence so am now waiting to hear back re this.
I've received the Trust's response to my FOI re Contract in place at Grafton Street between ParkingEye and Manchester Royal Infirmary.  The Information Commissioners Office asked for the Trust to answer questions about the Contract in place and these are the Trust's answers to ICO's questions:
1. the date the trial commenced and ended
 The agreement was effectively structured as a 12 month trial which could then be extended. Contract commenced – 18th April 2017 Contract ended – 20th November 2018 (12 months after the go-live date) Please note this initial contract ended earlier than scheduled as the first extension was entered into on 30th August 2018.
2. the initial date the contract was signed
Signed by the Trust on 18th April 2017 Signed by Parking Eye on 19th April 2017
3. the go-live date Go-live date - 20th November 2017
4. term of contract
An initial 12 month contract from the go-live date (20th November 2017), with a possibility to extend.
5. review date
The initial contract did not have a review date, nor do the subsequent extensions.
6. interim measures in place
The contract is governed by the agreed terms and conditions
7. extension date agreed & commenced
Extension 1: Extension agreed on – 30th August 2018
Extension commenced on – 30th August 2018 (for a 12 month period)
Extension 2: Extension agreed on – 10th July 2019
Extension commenced on – 1st September 2019 (for a 12 month period) 


My question is, if a Contract is not signed but is agreed, would this be acceptable to a Judge in the County Court.  My Parking Event was in  June 2019.  Thanks

Redx

To my untrained eye it seems that both parties signed it , according to the above

As for your question , only a judge can decide ,you won't find any judges on here , so any answer is an assumption of a possible outcome. We know this as Judge Bingo , especially in lower courts , be different if it was the Supreme court