Evidence/case law help.

JCoot

Hi

I have read the newbies thread regarding evidence and case law.

Just wondering if you are aware of any specific case law that relates to my case - parking at a GP practice for an appointment and being issued a ticket due to not registering vehicle on hidden keypad inside the surgery - no signage in the surgery itself.

I've included pictures showing banners that have since been placed outside.

Also I didn't print the POPLA appeal documents at the time - is there a way of accessing these for the purposes of the witness statement?

Thank you

KeithP

JCoot said:

I received a Claim Form from Civil Enforcement issued 22nd December 2021.
AOS was done 02/01/22
My understanding is that I have until 4pm on 24th Jan to serve Defence.  Is this correct?

That is correct but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th January 2022 to file your Defence.

Plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Redx

The Defence template already objects to the spurious charges , but court fees and legal fees are allowed , typically £100 for the PCN , the claim fee and legal fee , totalling about £185 to £200

Save the stories for the witness statement , including popla

The defence template paragraphs are to set the scene and defend the claim. So post your proposed draft paragraphs 2 and 3 below for critique , I suggest that you admit being keeper and driver , plus a client of the business ( as a patient ) , with a hidden keypad Defence

S Wilson , wongaman

Coupon-mad

Yes, the template covers the false added cost.  The legal fees and claim fee are not false and the interest is technically allowed but in practice is unlikely to be granted.  So add nothing about the costs.

Do I have to mention the POPLA appeal?

No.  

Concentrate on the fact the signs were so unclear that the GP Surgery were inundated with complaints and additional banner signs had to be added.  The signs inside the GP surgery and pharmacy (both with walls and doors full of signs and various information) were far from conspicuous so no-one knew that patients were expected to use a hidden keypad.  There was no agreed contract to pay £100 or any sum at all.

Secondly, say that a keying error such as this is considered a minor matter (no legitimate interest to merit a high charge) and the BPA says since 1.1.2020 that this should result in either a cancelled charge or maximum £20.  The Claimant, being a BPA member for many years, would have known this was the direction of travel of the BPA Code of Practice, mere months earlier in 2019.  That view is repeated by the Government in the DLUHC's proposed Appeals Charter, coming in as part of the new Parking (Code of Practice) Act regulatory changes, introduced to curb the worst rogue practices of this out of control industry.

JCoot

Thank you - I will post defence shortly.

Do I go with the 'violation date' stated on the claim form or the PCN reference that is stated and just correct the violation date in my defence?

Coupon-mad

It's not a violation, contravention, offence nor fine, nothing like that. 

You could state that the Defendant has checked PCN number xxxxxxxx, as stated in the POC, and it is a charge about a different parking event date.  Don't state which date.  You don't have to help them.

But that's not a deal breaker so then continue with whatever your defence would be, in the event that the Claimant is able to evidence a relevant parking event at that location.

D_P_Dance

It's not a violation, contravention, offence nor fine, nothing like that. 

It is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.  Only a judge can say whether a contract existed, and if so whether you breached it.  It is all explained in the newbies,, please read them and complaine to your MP.,.

JCoot

Views/comments on the defence below would be much appreciated:

1.    The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.    It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question however, liability is denied.  The Defendant has also checked the PCN number stated on the Particulars of Claim, and this is incorrect.

3.    The facts of the case are as follows: On the 23rd May 2019, the Defendant attended xxxxxxxxxxxx (hereafter referred to as ‘the GP practice’).  The Defendant is a patient at this GP practice and was attending for an appointment.  The Defendant parked her car in the car park which is for the use of patients and those visiting the adjoining Lloyds Pharmacy.  The Defendant, upon entering her GP practice, registered her details with the receptionist.  The Defendant was not directed or prompted to do anything additional and as such, following her appointment, she duly left the car park.  The Defendant was then later sent a parking charge for this visit to her GP practice.

4.    The Defendant initially complained to the GP practice who had been inundated with complaints and informed the Defendant that they could not interfere with the matters of a third party contractor.  This is despite NHS car parking guidance stating that ‘NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf’.  The Defendant therefore appealed to the Claimant. 

5.    Despite the Defendant providing clear evidence of her GP appointment and therefore evidencing her right to park in the car park as a legitimate patient of the GP practice, the Claimant chose to disregard the evidence and proceed with this parking charge.

6.    The Defendant defends this claim on the following grounds:

      i.        Despite being a patient at the GP Practice for many years, the Defendant received no information regarding the changes the GP practice had introduced to their parking system.  There was no forewarning for patients that this system was now ‘live’.  

     ii.        The Parking signs were unclear and ambiguous.  The signs inside the GP surgery and pharmacy (both with walls and doors full of signs and various information) were far from conspicuous.  Therefore, the Defendant did not know that she was required to use a hidden keypad to be issued with an electronic ‘parking permit’.

    iii.        There was no agreed contract to pay £100 or any sum at all.

    iv.        Since the issue of this parking charge, the GP Practice has been inundated with complaints regarding the issues raised in this defence.  Some of these complaints were taken to the local media who highlighted this issue on behalf of patients.  As a result, the signage in and around the GP Practice has significantly changed.  The GP practice has since purchased and displayed large banners outside of the practice and introduced signage inside the building, informing patients how to register for a ‘parking permit’ using the hidden keypad.

     v.        A keying error such as this is considered a minor matter (no legitimate interest to merit a high charge) and the BPA says since the 1st January 2020, that this should result in either a cancelled charge or maximum £20.  The Claimant, being a BPA member for many years, would have known this was the direction of travel of the BPA Code of Practice, mere months earlier in 2019.  That view is repeated by the Government in the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities proposed Appeals Charter, coming in as part of the new Parking (Code of Practice) Act regulatory changes, introduced to curb the worst rogue practices of this out-of-control industry.

    vi.        It has not been disputed in this case that the Defendant was visiting the surgery as a patient therefore enforcement of the parking charge would go against the fundamental purpose of the parking charge - to ensure only patients park in the car park.  The parking charge is unreasonable in these circumstances.

Coupon-mad

Very good, that tells all the facts and gives solid legal arguments why you are not liable - mainly due to crap signage and lack of any legitimate interest.  So unnecessary to let a poxy PPC hound the patients.

We assume the rest of the template defence follows, just to be clear for new readers.  That's not the full defence.

JCoot

Thank you

yes I have kept the remainder of the defence as written in the defence template. 

1505grandad

A heads-up:-

Hopefully you have read and understood the Template Defence and therefore realise that the existing para 7  in the Template states -  "He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed."

As you now have more than paras 2 and 3 - and therefore have to renumber the subsequent paras - you have altered the reference to point 5 accordingly.