Midwife receieved County Court Claim Form for parking illegally at hospital car park -advice please.

Castle

KeithP said:

As well as their Privacy Policy, doesn't their full company name and their Companies House registration number also have to be on their website?

I couldn't find that on their website, but Companies House states...

Correct it has to under sections 24(2) and 25(1)(c) of the following 2015 regulations:-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/17/regulation/25/made

Failure to so is an offence with a fine of up to £1,000 on conviction for each Director.

Jamie_G85

Castle said:

KeithP said:

As well as their Privacy Policy, doesn't their full company name and their Companies House registration number also have to be on their website?

I couldn't find that on their website, but Companies House states...

Correct it has to under sections 24(2) and 25(1)(c) of the following 2015 regulations

Failure to so is an offence with a fine of up to £1,000 on conviction for each Director.

Is this something I can put in the defence?

Fruitcake

It won't hurt to mention any breach of laws or regulations as a matter of fact. If the PPC are negligent in complying with the law, the judge might assume on the balance of probabilities they failed to comply with other requirements.

A simple  "It should be noted that the claimant has failed to comply with X, Y, and Z which is not only an offence, but also breaches their trade associations Code of Practice A, B, C which states that ... (*insert here the specific wording to the effect that they must comply with laws, Acts of Parliament, and other statutory instruments.*)

Jamie_G85

Thanks for all the replies so far, really appreciate it.

My wife was back in work yesterday and measured the lettering on the entrance sign. 'WARNING' was 45-46mm high and 'CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT' measured only 40mm high.
BPA code of practice states a minimum of 60mm for Group 1 text, from a turning off a 30mph road. Also confirmed is the sign relies on ambient light from other street lights which are not very close by and the sign is not reflective.
Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be sufficient signage around the car park itself, and the ones that are there are positioned very high up a streetlight. My wife can walk into the hospital from her parked car without passing any other sign stating terms and conditions.
Also, some of the signs are just in english but stated in the 'Welsh Health Technical Memorandum 07-03', all signs in NHS car parks in wales must be bilingual with both welsh and english language. Would this also be covered by the BPA's code of practice where it states... 'Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand'?

Just wondering, in the defence, do I simply put a statement to say 'the signage does not comply to BPA's code of practice therefore there is no contractual agreement with any terms and conditions stated' and leave all the non conformal details such as text, lack of light etc. for the witness statement. Not sure how much detail I should actually go into with the defence statement. 

Coupon-mad

We haven't seen any of the signs inside the car park that have the parking charge on them. No rush but you will need pics of one of those for WS stage.

For now, the facts section in the Template Defence should admit in para 2 that she was the driver (if I understand this right? I do skim-read for speed!).

Then explain in para 3 what the Defendant does for a living, and the indisputable fact that she was not 'unauthorised' to park at this hospital whilst on shift.

Then you could add a para 4 stating that neither the entrance sign nor the sparse small-print signs inside this car park meet the mandatory requirements of the BPA code of practice and at no point did the Defendant knowingly accept a contract to pay an onerous charge to attend her shift. This charge lacks the legitimate interest/commercial justification that saved the £85 charge in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Supreme Court) from being struck out as a penalty.  Hospital staff and long term patients are meant to be protected from onerous and unfair charges. The regime also stands in flagrant breach of joint NHS/Government policy as set out in the NHS Car Parking Principles and communicated in an official Memorandum to all NHS Trusts.

Then re-number the rest of the Template.

Jamie_G85

Coupon-mad said:

We haven't seen any of the signs inside the car park that have the parking charge on them. No rush but you will need pics of one of those for WS stage.

For now, the facts section in the Template Defence should admit in para 2 that she was the driver (if I understand this right? I do skim-read for speed!).

Then explain in para 3 what the Defendant does for a living, and the indisputable fact that she was not 'unauthorised' to park at this hospital whilst on shift.

Then you could add a para 4 stating that neither the entrance sign nor the sparse small-print signs inside this car park meet the mandatory requirements of the BPA code of practice and at no point did the Defendant knowingly accept a contract to pay an onerous charge to attend her shift. This charge lacks the legitimate interest/commercial justification that saved the £85 charge in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Supreme Court) from being struck out as a penalty.  Hospital staff and long term patients are meant to be protected from onerous and unfair charges. The regime also stands in flagrant breach of joint NHS/Government policy as set out in the NHS Car Parking Principles and communicated in an official Memorandum to all NHS Trusts.

Then re-number the rest of the Template.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Below are the signs within the car park and the back of one of the signs circled which was the only one she could see from her parked car. From this you can gauge how high the signs are.
The 'parking charge' statement should be in bold (which it is) and of a comparable size to the main body text (which it is not) as stated in the governments private parking code of practice, however I have just noticed that this document has been withdrawn from the government website pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees. 

Coupon-mad

'Strictly no parking' offers nothing of value.

No consideration = no contract. 

There's an attempt at a contract in tiny print but that's unreadable and the sign is cluttered gobbledegook, that no patient or staff arriving could ever hope to read, understand and be bound by, before starting work or attending an appointment.

Castle

As the Hospital is in Wales you'll need the Welsh Government's "Car parking management" guidance; (note the last paragraph on page 4 of the document about a permit scheme for midwives):-
https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-06/car-parking-management-guidance-for-nhs-wales.pdf

Jamie_G85

Good afternoon all.

Hope you've all had a good weekend.

Here's my wife's first defence draft. Would appreciate any feedback...

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court, permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand their Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

4. It is admitted that on 29/01/2000 and 22/03/2021, the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at Prince Charles Hospital car park.

5. The Defendant works as a midwife at Prince Charles Hospital and uses the car park on a daily basis and when they are on call. Therefore, the Defendant is not ‘unauthorised’ to use the car park whilst on shift and if they are requested into work in an emergency, when on call.

6. It was and still is a well-known problem for staff who use the car park:

6.1 Regularly, the car park is at full capacity between early morning and late evening, forcing staff to park outside of allocated bays to attend work.

6.2 There has been ongoing extensive development/building work carried out on the hospital since the Defendant started working at Prince Charles Hospital (January 2019) and continues on to this present day. The car park has had numerous areas closed off to store plant machinery, porta cabins and materials, which has reduced the car park capacity, leading to these problems.

6.3 The car parking issues were reported and publicised by Wales Online dated 4/02/2020 and described as ‘diabolical’, which is the month after the date of the first PCN.

6.4 The Defendant has made every effort to avoid being penalised and has always left a note on the dashboard explaining that she is a midwife working at the hospital and displays her mobile telephone number should her car be causing an obstruction.

6.5 There was a period where there was a  permit only parking section allocated but this was taken away for construction work to proceed and only recently has been re-established again. However, the Defendant has requested a parking permit with the facilities manager at the hospital on numerous occasions, only to be refused and told she is not entitled to a permit.

6.6 No allocated staff parking. The car park is too small to cope with the demand from the hospital and without allocated staff car park; it is a severe disadvantage for the staff working at the hospital.

6.7 There is zero legitimate interest in penalising staff and it contravenes the NHS car parking principles.

 

7.  At no point did the Defendant knowingly accept a contract to pay an onerous charge to attend her shift. This charge lacks the legitimate interest/commercial justification that saved the £85 charge in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Supreme Court) from being struck out as a penalty. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. Hospital staff and long term patients are meant to be protected from onerous and unfair charges. The regime also stands in flagrant breach of joint NHS/Government policy as set out in the NHS Car Parking Principles and communicated in an official Memorandum to all NHS Trusts.

7.1 The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.

7.2 At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

7.3 Neither the entrance sign nor the sparse small-print signs inside the car park comply with the mandatory requirements of the BPA Code of Practice.

7.4 The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.

7.5 The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

 

8. It should be noted, that the Claimant’s website does not comply with legislation and therefore questions other breaches of laws and regulations they fail to comply with:

8.1 Claimants website (www.ps24.co.uk) does not contain a privacy policy although the car park signs around the car park in question, instruct you to view their privacy policy on their website.

8.2 Websites should state their full company name and their Companies House registration number as stated under sections 24(2), 25(1)(c) and 25(2)(b) of The Company, Limited Liability, Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015. Failure to do so is an offence. The Claimants website does not state either.

Trainerman

Just a thought, but as you have said in 5 that the defendant is not unauthorised, I would not be saying in 6.5 that she was refused a permit ! I would change that to  ".....but no permit ever arrived "