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

Coupon-mad

7.5 talks about a residential site.

You didn't mention @Castle's point about midwives being specifically mentioned in 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

Nor my point:

'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.

Jamie_G85

Trainerman said:

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 "

She parked in general parking on double yellows, not in permit only parking. I was just trying to point out that although there is permit only parking, she is told she is not eligible so she has to park in the general car park which is more often at full capacity. Does that make sense now or should I still amend it do you think?

Jamie_G85

Coupon-mad said:

7.5 talks about a residential site.

You didn't mention @Castle's point about midwives being specifically mentioned in 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

Nor my point:

'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.

Thanks.

Well spotted about the residential site. I'll amend this and add the 2 other points.

Trainerman

I am guessing that the alleged contravention is for parking on the double yellows or 'not in a bay'? Which is different to parking in an "unauthorised" area. Would that be correct?

Jamie_G85

Trainerman said:

I am guessing that the alleged contravention is for parking on the double yellows or 'not in a bay'? Which is different to parking in an "unauthorised" area. Would that be correct?

That is correct. The unauthorised part was advised to be put in the defence by coupon-mad on page 2. Should I remove this statement perhaps?

Trainerman

Just clarifying for now. If Coupon-mad put it in, leave it right there !

Jamie_G85

Coupon-mad said:

7.5 talks about a residential site.

You didn't mention @Castle's point about midwives being specifically mentioned in 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

Nor my point:

'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.

I've made the ammendments. I've added 6.5.1 referencing Castle's point about NHS Wales car park guidelines and also your points under 7.4 and 7.5.
I have also changed the reference to 'hospital car park' which was referencing a residential site which you picked up on which is now 7.7.
Just to clarify, my wife has had tickets for parking outside of allocated parking bays at a hospital car park, due to the car park being at full capacity when she gets to work and with no other option.

Hopefully, this now reads ok. Again, feedback is appreciated before I send it. We go away on Wednesday so hoping I can get this wrapped up and emailed tomorrow.

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.

6.5.1 In a Welsh Health Circular dated 5th April 2018 and Titled, ‘Car Parking Management – Guidance for NHS Wales’, it states that there should be ‘hospital permit holders only’ areas at acute hospital sites and should be for staff who meet certain criteria such as midwives and on-call medical staff.

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

7.5   ‘Strictly No Parking’ offers nothing of value. No consideration equals no contract.

7.6   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.

7.7   The Defendant avers that the hospital car park 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.

Coupon-mad

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.

I'd remove that. Just leave it unsaid.

Jamie_G85

Coupon-mad said:

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.

I'd remove that. Just leave it unsaid.

Great, I'll do that.

Last few questions:

Can I just check it's ok to use the term gobbledegook or should I elaborate?
I'll be sending this by email as per KeithP's instruction. I did come across a post which said to post a copy as well, is this necessary?

Lastly, i'll be submitting the defence well before the deadline date due to being away  away for 2 and a half weeks. How long do you usually have to complete the questionnaire n180 form when they request for this? It's not something I want to be doing whilst away. Is it worth stating in the email that we're on holidays between these dates when submitting the defence?

Coupon-mad

Nothing wrong with gobbledegook, or 'gibberish' if you prefer, as this Judge said in a similar case:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/07/ukcps-claim-dismissed-judge-rules.html?m=1

No need to post a copy, as long as you get an acknowledgement email back from the CCBC.

You won't receive your N180 till September and there will be time to deal with it after you are back.