ParkingEye/Hospital Carpark - County Court Claim defence

nosferatu1001

What have you done yourself? 
Have you checked the pricnipal named is the landowner? Checked company house to see that the name and number all match? Checked that the named person is a Director? If not then PE need to prove THAT person had authority to sign on behalf of their company, etc. 

Coupon-mad

That's easy - excessive redactions.  You can't even see the hours of operation, exemptions, definitions, grace period - nothing!  As evidence that's useless and you should declare that to the Judge.  For all we know, the hours of operation or site boundary might be OUTSIDE the time and place your car stopped.  For all we know, the parking charge might be fifty quid reducing to £25.  There is nothing to be sure under what criteria, or where, they are authorised to operate. 

ParkingEye's own aerial view 'site map' is created by P/Eye themselves and is usually undated and is no evidence of where signs are, or the site boundaries.

See the Court of Appeal case about redactions - posted by Johnersh last year.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, redactions are a killer point
Anything commercially sensitive - such as contract pricing - might be allowable, however site boundary - cannot be. Hours of operation - cannot be.

1505grandad

"See the Court of Appeal case about redactions - posted by Johnersh last year."

As per forum example WS:-

"In the recent Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA 

Civ 907 the Court of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court 

are being asked to interpret the contract.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html Ref. paras 74 & 75 ''...The document 

must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be 

appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the 

court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone 

cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision..."

Eric9

Hello 
Sorry I wasn't able to get back onto  the computer till now.  Thanks so much everyone for all your comments.  I checked the MD for ParkingEye who signed this 'Contract', which was Phil Boynes so this was correct.  The Companies House No. was correct.  The Commercial Director's name from the Trust has been redacted but the signature is the same as on POPLA's Witness Statement.  I won't say the name on here but it was included on POPLA's Witness Statement so not sure if it should have been redacted or not. For a historical FOI request asking about who the contact was at the hospital who deals with the Trust's PFI Contract, this man's name was given for that.  When you do an internet search looking for the Commercial Director of Estates Fascilities, it comes up with Kathryn Mitchell, Site Director of Estates & Fascilities, but I know she didn't sign this 'Contract'.  I'm not sure if the person whose signing the 'Contract' s name should be redacted or not.  I wouldn't have thought so.?  I don't know if this person had authority to sign this 'Contract' or not on behalf of the Trust?

This 'Contract' doesn't tell you much at all but for other Trusts which I've managed to find online, some have had both a 'Contract' document in place running alongside a 'Supply Agreement' document.  This 'Contract' does not even say when the 'Initial period' ends, so it's reassuring to hear all your comments about redactions.  

Thanks for putting up the link 1505 Grandad, I looked at this, which was very complicated but I could see the Judge threw out this redacted Contract. 

I've included below another PDF file taken from ParkingEye's Exhibits - the 'Signage Plans', the 'Signage Type, Allocation and Size'  documents and photos of the carpark entrance. 
-  It seems 3 x Sign Type 13b's should have been fixed on the Ticket Dispensing Machines (indicated on the Signage Layout Plan), but these Sign Type 13b's were fixed on the Barrier Posts.  The photograph of Sign Type 13b on the Barrier Post wasn't put forward to the Judge, but it was put forward at POPLA stage and I included this photo in my WS so can show this the Judge.  I've shown this photograph in the PDF file. If the Sign Types 13b had been installed on the Ticket Disp Machines, as per the Signage Layout Plan, then I'd have seen this and known an ANPR parking system was in operation.
- ParkingEye state anyone who has OK eyesight should be able to read this ANPR sign from the driver's seat.  I have good eyesight and couldn't read the text on this sign, as it was too small.  The original ANPR sign (which was a ParkingEye BPA Approved template sign had text measuring 18mm high) shown in photograph dated 22/3/2018 in attached PDF file.  The replacement ANPR sign had text which measured 10mm shown in photograph dated 30/11/2018.  I'd welcome any comments on my PDF file photographs.  Thanks so much.

Coupon-mad

Have you submitted your own WS and evidence yet?  I just relocated this, which is a report by the Plain Language Commission we knew about a while back, that would make an apposite exhibit for your case:

https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/aaf9e928/files/uploaded/Queens_Hospital_Ed1.pdf

Eric9

 Hi Coupon-mad
I really really appreciate you going to the trouble to find this Plain Language Commission report / article and putting the link on my thread above.  Its even got the actual 'good' BPA approved ANPR template sign at the top of the report. 

Yes, I have submitted my WS  (and Exhibits) and then I received ParkingEye's WS and Exhibits. 
Its infuriating that this report from the Plain Lang Commission is dated back in Aug 2014 and all these years on, nothing seems to have changed.   PCNs (like mine and so many others) are still being unfairly issued and when I read how the DVLA, BPA and POPLA  are all funded in respect of ParkingEye, it made sense as to why nothing has changed because the appellants are massively disadvantaged when trying to defend their cases.  Myself as an example, should not have lost at POPLA which only happened because ParkingEye submitted photos of the carpark showing this 'good' BPA approved ANPR template sign as being at the carpark entrance, but this sign wasn't there.  As this 2014 report said, it was found that some Trusts were designing their own signs and using these.  This happened in my case, as the Trust replaced the BPA  approved template ANPR sign with their own ANPR sign version, which looked almost the same except that the text was 10mm high (when the original ANPR sign's text measured 18mm high).  I even lost my POPLA appeal because the signage layout plan was inaccurate, showing signage as being on the ticket disp machines, when this was not the case, as the signs were on the barrier bases and the text was too small to read.   ParkingEye are saying in their WS, the ANPR signage which was there at the site (I presume on the barrier bases - no longer there and on the signage poles) should have been readable to any motorist whose eyesight was good enough to legally allow them to drive.  My eyesight is good but I cannot read the text (10mm high) on the ANPR sign on the signage pole.  

Thanks again Coupon-mad for helping me with this.

Coupon-mad

I would submit a quick (signed & dated of course) 'Supplementary WS' appending that report, stating that it is an exhibit in response to issues raised by the Claimant in their witness statement whereby they are trying to tell the court that their signs are adequate, when a reasonable person at the Plain Language Commission has reported, six years ago, that they are not.  And nothing has been done about it.

Worst that can happen is the Judge disallows it.   Many Judges would allow it, especially as it is a report that the Claimant is completely familiar with and not an 'ambush' of new information.  Don't apologise for its lateness, just file & serve it and see!

D_P_Dance

at the Plain Language Commission has reported, six years ago, 

Here it is

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/motorist-wins-18-month-ticket-battle-870812

Coupon-mad

No it isn't DP.  That's an entirely different case, also by Martin Cutts.

We are talking about the link I provided earlier, specifically a PL report about ParkingEye signs at Hospitals.  A useful one for us to start using more often.