Parking fine - Going to court - Guidance appreciated

hyperlime

Hi All,

I have been helping my sister with this as per newbie guidance. Unfortunately, it looks like she is going to court in 3 weeks time or so. 

Any guidance or advice from someone who has been or knows what to do is greatly appreciated as she is very anxious.


Thank you in advance

troublemaker22

We'd need to know a bit more about the case than the anticipated date of the hearing. Please post  (with all identifying information redacted):

1.  The front page of the claim form.

2.  The defence.

3. The claimant's witness statement.

4. Your sister's witness statement

hyperlime

Hi thank you for getting back, I had to compile this.

1. The claim is in regards to four (nov 21 - may 22) parking tickets that occurred at Barnet Hospital during COVID while my sister was working at the hospital they did give free parking for staff on premises but the tickets were a little after the fact, rest of the claim is pretty standard but thats the overview. All including their silly fees 850 GBP approx.

2. Defense submitted was from the template, but brief paragraph about how she was working at the hospital during covid and no official notice and/or otherwise to state parking.

3.  Claimant's statement: i have attached this below due to character limit.

4. Sister's statement (I used a template from the forum but those are the main amended paragraphs otherwise its 40 pages):

9. Misclassification of Parking Designation: The claimant mistakenly identified the parking

area I used as "patient and visitor" parking, unaware that this area is also designated for staff

parking. Crucially, they were also unaware of my status as staff until my notice of termination was

issued. This oversight underscores a significant miscommunication and misunderstanding about

the parking arrangements and staff entitlements, further challenging the basis of their claims

against me. See Exhibit 5

10. Extended Parking Agreement: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a special arrangement

allowed NHS staff at the hospital to use parking spaces, recognizing the extraordinary

circumstances and pressures faced. This agreement, documented through email

communications, was not only extended multiple times but also verbally affirmed by senior staff

at Barnet Hospital. These verbal communications indicated an indefinite extension of parking

privileges for staff while they continued to work through the pandemic, suggesting a level of

flexibility and support beyond the formal email notifications. See Exhibit 6

11. Absence of a Formal Contract: There was never a formal contract or agreement

established between the claimant (parking management) and the defendant (myself or NHS staff

collectively) that explicitly prohibited parking during the COVID pandemic or at any other time.

This lack of formal agreement is crucial, as the claimant has been unable to provide evidence of

such a prohibition. Furthermore, the signage directed at NHS staff regarding parking policies

remained unchanged throughout the pandemic. This unamended signage failed to reflect any

new or temporary parking restrictions, indicating a disconnect between the claimant's assertions

and the information provided to NHS staff. Contract terms can be ambiguous and capable of being

interpreted in different ways, especially if they are not in writing or in an accessible format. In

these cases, this section ensures that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the consumer,

rather than the trader, is the interpretation that is used.

12. Failure to resolve parking issues: The claimant's consistent failure to effectively manage

parking arrangements for NHS staff during the pandemic is evident in their inability to issue

necessary parking permits and to communicate clear and consistent information regarding parking policies. This lack of communication and failure to adapt to the unique circumstances of

the pandemic resulted in confusion and frustration among NHS staff, who were already facing

unprecedented challenges in their professional roles, which the Claimant has complete disregard

for.

13. Employment with NHS: My employment at Barnet Hospital is substantiated by Exhibit 7,

underscoring my eligibility for parking under the special agreement during the pandemic. The

absence of a formal termination notice for any supposed parking contract in 2022—especially

following the imposition of what I consider to be exaggerated parking charges a year earlier—

raises questions about the claimant's management practices and the validity of their claims

against NHS staff. This discrepancy highlights a lack of procedural clarity and fairness in how

parking policies were enforced during a time of extreme pressure on healthcare workers. (See

Exhibit 07).

14. Lack of physical barrier: The car park's open access for NHS staff, without a physical barrier

or clear entry restrictions, further contradicts the claimant's allegations of parking violations. This

lack of a barrier not only made it deceivingly easy for staff to assume parking was permitted but

also undermines the claimant's argument about enforcing specific parking restrictions. The open

access suggests an implicit invitation to park, conflicting with the claimant's later assertions of

unauthorized use. See Exhibit 8

15. Lack of signage, no parking instructions, and hidden terms: The signage distinguishing

between visitor and staff parking areas is minimal and not clearly visible upon entering the car

park. The signs are not positioned to be easily seen by drivers and are obscured from view,

contributing to confusion about parking designations and exacerbating the miscommunication

regarding parking permissions for NHS staff. This lack of clear, visible signage has made it difficult

for staff and visitors alike to understand and comply with parking regulations, calling into question

the fairness of enforcing any alleged violations. See Exhibit 8 and 9

5. They added a supplementary witness statement on the 19th of Feb, bearing in mind court date is 29th Feb:

I am the Enforcement Manager, employed by ParkingEye Ltd T/A Car Parking Partnership (“my

Company”). I am duly authorised to make this Statement on my Company’s behalf.

2. I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s First Witness Statement and in response to the

Defendant’s Witness Statement.

3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise.

I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified.

Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

4. The Defendant’s main dispute within their Witness Statement is in relation to the parking

arrangements. They state that staff were permitted to park in patient and visitor areas, and that they

were also permitted to park for free, under special arrangement, in line with an email that they have

exhibited.

1

5. The Defendant’s statements are denied in their entirety. As stated within my first Witness Statement,

The Defendant parked within an area in which the terms were as follows: -

“Tariff payable at machine or by phone

Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”.

6. The same applied regardless as to whether the Defendant was a staff member, and thus the Defendant

was not exempt from complying with such terms. Whilst the Defendant’s correspondence is

acknowledged at exhibit 6 of their Witness Statement, it is respectfully submitted that third parties do

not override the terms and conditions of parking and the Defendant thus has an obligation to comply.

7. In any event, the email in which the Defendant provided clearly states that staff are able to park for

free with temporary permits until 30/06/2021. It reiterates that these permits/this agreement is

temporary and encourages employees to make preparations for when the free parking comes to an

end. It is submitted that all 4 PCNs issued to the Defendant range from 09/11/2021-05/05/2022, after

the end of the date listed within the email that they exhibit. Thus, the evidence provided by the

Defendant bears no relevance on the proceedings and they were under an obligation to comply with

the terms at the time that the PCNs were issued.

8. The Defendant also stated that the Claimant demonstrates a ‘consistent failure to effectively manage

parking arrangements for NHS staff during the pandemic is evident in their inability to issue

necessary parking permits and to communicate clear and consistent information regarding parking

policies’. This is wholly denied. Pursuant to “EXHIBIT 2” of my first Witness Statement, signs

were clearly visible on the land outlining the relevant parking restrictions. My Company is employed

by the Landowner to manage the land and such terms as displayed on the land are the terms that are

binding on the users of such. If the Defendant was unsure as to whether they had a requirement to

comply with the aforementioned terms, respectfully, they ought to have sought alternative parking.

9. The Defendant further disputes the lack of a physical barrier on the land, stating that this

demonstrates open access for NHS staff and makes it easy for staff members to assume that they are

entitled to park on the land. Respectfully, the Defendants statements are irrelevant to the proceedings.

My Company is a member of the BPA and have complied with all requirements in order to manage

the land. It is submitted that there is no responsibility to impose a barrier on the land and my

Company has taken all reasonable steps to put users on notice of the terms on the land. The

responsibility then lies with the Defendant to ensure such terms are reviewed and complied with.

hyperlime

Claimant's Statement :

Defendant’s Liability

18. Pursuant to the Contract; the Driver was liable to pay the Charge within 28 days of issue.

19. In order to issue a PCN, my Company requests the details of the Registered Keeper from the DVLA

and upon receipt of those details, Notice is sent to the Keeper via the post. The Charge Notice is

followed up with other reminder notices. Copies are with “EXHIBIT 3”.

20. My Company uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology on the Land to

manage the parking. Cameras capable of accurately recording vehicle registration numbers are

constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the Land. A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it

enters and exits the Land. Any vehicle found to have breached the Terms of parking will be issued

with a PCN.

21. The Defendant admits to being the Registered Keeper and Driver of the Vehicle within Paragraph 2

of their Defence. My Company reasonably believes that the Defendant was the Driver on the balance

of probabilities because they would otherwise have nominated a driver, and therefore the Defendant

is pursued on that basis.

Defence

22. The case is simple. The ANPR cameras recorded the Vehicle on the Land without making payment

for the duration of their stay. The signs very clearly state that parking is permitted for visitors and

patients only with the correct tariff payment being made. The cameras are provided with criteria and

issue charges where those criteria are met (i.e. not made payment). There can be no reason, other than

to frustrate the matter, why the Defendant has submitted a legally complex defence in response to

that. The Defendant simply needs to answer the questions that has been avoided throughout the

4

Defence; did they remain parked on the Land without making payment as per the signage displayed?

The answer being yes as is evident from the photographs of the Vehicle contained within the Notices

at “EXHIBIT 3”.

23. The Defendant was afforded a 28-day period in which they could appeal, and I am instructed they did

not. The potential next step was clearly communicated to the Defendant in notices. It is respectfully

submitted that if the Defendant thought that the Charge had been issued incorrectly, they should have

engaged with the appeals process further.

24. If there was any doubt regarding their liability, the Defendant has had ample time to challenge the

Charge or request evidence in support. Despite correspondence being sent to the Defendant by a debt

collection agency and a Letter of Claim being issued in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for

Debt Claims, no challenges have previously been raised.

25. The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the

substantive issues. It is submitted the this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my

Company’s time.

26. Notwithstanding the above, I respond to the issues by way of sub-headings as follows (as the Defence

is quite repetitive, I will only deal with each point once, but for the avoidance of doubt nothing

within the Defence is accepted unless I specifically state otherwise): -

The Contract

i. The Defendant alleges that there is no Contract between them and my Company. It is my

Company’s position that there is and the details of which are set out above; Parking Eye -v-

Beavis established that this form of Contract is perfectly workable;

ii. Further to the above, the Defendant alleges that my Company has no authority to bring the Claim.

The Landowner instructed my Company to manage the parking on the Land and issue Parking

Charges to any Vehicle found to be in breach of the Terms of parking. A copy of the agreement

can be seen at “EXHIBIT 1”. It is respectfully submitted that my Company has the relevant

authority to issue Parking Charges and bring Claims for such in the event the charges remain

outstanding. In any event, the Defendant is a third party to the Landowner Agreement and privity

of Contract applies;

5

Defendant’s Allegations

iii.The Defendant admits to being the Registered Keeper and the Driver of the Vehicle on the dates in

question. It is my Company’s position that the Defendant breached the Terms of parking

described within the First Witness Statement of Carly Boon and ought to remain liable for the

same;

iv. The Defendant submits that on each occasion, NHS staff were authorised to park at Barnet

Hospital for free. Whilst my Company acknowledges the Defendant’s statement, it is clear from

the Whitelist of the Vehicle exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 5” that there is no record

of the Defendant’s Vehicle being exempt from Terms on the Land on the dates in question.

Rather, it is evident from the Whitelist that the Defendant’s Vehicle has been exempt from Terms

at “Asda Luton” and “Asda Colindale” due to being staff. It is therefore my Company’s position

that the signage at “EXHIBIT 2” is clearly displayed on the Land for Drivers to read and ensure

that they can comply with the same. If the Defendant was unable to comply with the Terms on the

date in question, they ought to have sought out alternative parking;

v. Further to the above, the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to support their allegations

of being staff of the hospital on the Land. It is further submitted that the Defendant is put to strict

proof of the same. Moreover, should the Defendant provide evidence of their employment, my

Company holds no recollection of the Defendant’s Vehicle being placed on the Whitelist to

exempt them from Terms. In any event, the Defendant’s statement bears no relevance to the

proceedings as the PCNs were issued in a patient and visitor car park, not a staff car park.

Therefore, it is submitted that the Defendant ought to remain liable for the same;

CPR Compliance

vi. The Defendant questions whether the Particulars of Claim comply with the Civil Procedure Rules.

I submit that the Claim was issued via the County Court Business Centre and in this regard, I

refer to Practice Direction 7E (“the PD”) which specifically provides the guidelines for doing so.

I respectfully submit that the Particulars of Claim (“the Particulars”) are in keeping with the PD.

The following sections are of relevance: -

5.2 (1) provides a limited character count for the Particulars of Claim; and

6

5.2A stipulates that the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for

documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims

started using an online claim form.

vii. It is my Company’s position that the Particulars were sufficient to allow the Defendant to identify

the subject matter of the Claim. The Defendant could not have submitted a Defence with the

detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from understanding the

claim. Further, with respect, if the Defendant were of the genuine belief that the Particulars of

Claim were insufficient, the correct procedure would have been to make an Application to the

Court. The Defendant has chosen not to do so;

viii.In addition to the above, I also refer to CPR 1 and respectfully remind the Defendant of their

obligation to deal with the case justly and at proportionate cost. Bearing in mind the claim

amount, my Company has taken proportionate steps to recover the debt;

Amount Claimed

ix. The Defendant alleges that my Company not suffered no actual losses. This is denied. The

‘Genuine pre-estimate of loss’ argument was often advanced in parking ticket claims prior to

Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. This issue was settled in that case. My company has a legitimate

interest. Further, my Company is not seeking more than the original charge as the core debt

(£100.00); however, my Company is now also seeking further costs/damages;

x. My Company is instructed to manage the Land, the Landowner agreement previously referred to

in this statement confirms this. My Company’s legitimate interest is to fulfil this obligation. The

Landowner’s legitimate interest in managing the Land is because it is a hospital patient car park

where payment for parking stops non patients parking on the Land, preventing genuine patients

from not having access to parking. Because there is a clear legitimate interest/commercial

justification, the same as that established in ParkingEye -v- Beavis [2015], this case does not fall

foul of the penalty rules established in that case;

xi. The amount charged is in line with the guidelines given by the ATA. Part 20.5 of the BPA COP

states:- “We would not expect thus amount to be more than £100. If the Charge is more than this,

operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”. It is my Company’s position that there

is no requirement for the amount of the charge to bear any relevance to the actual or potential cost

of parking. The PCN is a fee charged by my Company for providing the service and it stays

7

within the guidelines given by the ATA. As with many other ‘services’; the service provider is

entitled to charge as they deem appropriate;

xii. The PCN was not paid within the prescribed 28 days or indeed at all. In view of this, the sum of

£70.00 is also claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract.

The Defendant was on notice of the fact that the outstanding amount may increase as a result of

any necessary debt recovery action. In support I draw the Court’s attention to paragraph 45 of

Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 whereby, when considering contractual

indemnity costs, it was stated: -

“There is nothing ... which enable[s] the rules to exclude or override that contractual

entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the Judge had the jurisdiction to

assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14”;

xiii.The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by my Company as a result of the

Defendant’s non-payment. My Company’s employees have spent time and material attempting to

recover the debt. This is not my Company’s usual business, and the resources could have been

better spent in other areas of the business, generating profit. Had the Defendant of paid as per the

Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have

increased;

xiv.With respect of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015], whilst it is accepted the original charge is

designed to include the ‘operational costs’; this was with reference to maintaining the Land,

taking payment or sending the relevant notices. It was never intended to include the need to

pursue the debt in Court to recover it. If that were the case, it would override the Civil Procedure

Rules (allowing fixed costs and recovery of Court fees) which of course is not the case. The

Defendant has misunderstood the phrasing ‘operational costs’;

xv. The recent successful appeal in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] EW Misc

12 (CC) (29 July 2020) found that the inclusion of the debt recovery charge in the Claim does not

fall foul of the decision of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, because that was not the

point in discussion in that case. The appeal also concluded that the inclusion of such a charge in a

Claim of this type does not constitute an abuse of process that would allow for the entire Claim to

be struck out;

8

New Code of Practice (“COP”)

xvi.The Defendant makes reference to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

(“DLUHC”) and the ‘new’ parking code of practice originally published in February 2022 within

their Defence. With respect, it is submitted that this bears no relevance to the matter at hand as

the code has not yet been enacted with the current status of the code being ‘withdrawn’ as of June

2022;

xvii. Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent

Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s

liability. With respect, nothing has currently been implemented by the Government for my

Company to adhere to (although this is of course pending). I respectfully ask the question: would

the Defendant have deemed it more appropriate for my Company to not adhere to the COP(?).

Referring to that Code is not ‘misleading’ – it is (at the present time) entirely relevant and section

111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] confirmed that;

The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

xviii.Within their Defence, the Defendant refers to the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

and states that the Defendant cannot be held liable as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle as my

Company has not complied with POFA. Respectfully, my Company does not intend to rely on

POFA and the Defendant is pursed as the Driver of the Vehicle, not the Keeper. As such, the

points raised within the Defendant’s Defence are not relevant to the proceedings. With respect,

the Defendant has admitted to being the Driver of the Vehicle on the contravention date. It is

therefore submitted that the Defendant’s Allegations regarding POFA bear no relevance to the

proceedings;

Signage / Unfair Contract Terms

xix. The Defendant alleges that the signage is insufficient. The Terms on the signs at “EXHIBIT 2”

were adequate in respect of overall size, font size, plain English, location and content. The Plan at

“EXHIBIT 4” demonstrates where the signs were located and it is submitted they are adequate to

constitute notice of the Terms to the Driver. If the Defendant did not understand the Terms on the

signs, they should have exited the Land and found alternative parking;

9

xx. In the event that a Driver parks their Vehicle on Land in which they do not own nor have prior

authority to park, it is incumbent upon the Driver to ascertain whether there is a remedy to

prevent their unauthorised parking. It is reasonable to suggest that the Defendant should have

sought out the signage on the Land in any case if they were unsure of the Terms of parking;

xxi. Further to the above, the signs at “EXHIBIT 2” clearly outlined the Terms of parking, and the

Defendant was on notice of the Terms upon entering the Land. By parking on the Land, the

Defendant accepted the Terms. These Terms state that if parked on the Land, payment is required

for the duration of their stay and that if the Terms are breached, the Defendant agrees to pay a

Parking Charge of £100.00. The Vehicle remained on the Land without making payment for

parking on each occasion, therefore; the Defendant breached the terms and agreed to pay a

Parking Charge;

xxii. In respect of the ‘terms’, as per Schedule 2 of the Consumer Right Act 2015, specifically referred

to: -

Term 6 – It is submitted the sum is not disproportionate for the reasons set out within

the ‘amount claimed’ section of this Statement, nor is it ‘compensation’;

Term 10 – As is evident from the Plan, signs were displayed throughout the Land. The

Driver was aware of the fact that parking was managed from the point of entering the

Land and could leave if they did not agree to the Terms. It is not unreasonable for the

Driver to need to potentially walk no more than 10 meters to fully familiarise

themselves with the full Terms. This would have all happened before the conclusion of

the Contract;

Term 14 – The price is stated on the sign;

Term 18 – The fact the Driver was able to park means my Company fulfilled their

obligations;

xxiii.The phrase ‘double recovery’ suggests the same amount is being recovered twice. This is not what

is claimed, as explained later in this Statement;

10

Landowner Authority

xxiv.Within paragraph 27 of the Defence, the Defendant alleges my Company has failed to adhere to

the Landowners definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation and instructions to

cancel charges due to complaints. The Defendant is a third party to the Landowner Agreement.

Privity of contract applies;

Defendant’s Costs

the regular stuff from on here onwards, no point pasting and character limit

KeithP

hyperlime said:

Hi All,

I have been helping my sister with this as per newbie guidance. Unfortunately, it looks like she is going to court in 3 weeks time or so. 

Any guidance or advice from someone who has been or knows what to do is greatly appreciated as she is very anxious.


Thank you in advance

Have you seen this video?...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

That video was made a few years ago and many hearings nowadays seem to be via telephone or video link.

hyperlime

Any tips in terms of actual defense so she can win?

Fruitcake

What happened when your sister complained to the landowner/the head of the hospital trust, and her MP? That is always Plan A, and it is never too late to do so.

If your sister is a union member, what has the union/her rep done to assist?

As previously requested by @troublemaker22, 

Please post  (with all identifying information redacted):

1.  The front page of the claim form.

Coupon-mad

hyperlime said:

Any tips in terms of actual defense so she can win?

She's way past that stage, if WS and evidence has been exchanged and the court hearing date is next week. 

hyperlime

Coupon-mad said:

hyperlime said:

Any tips in terms of actual defense so she can win?

She's way past that stage, if WS and evidence has been exchanged and the court hearing date is next week. 

I meant as in to defend in person, not the actual written defence. Any pointers for that? She just repeats the same defence and sticks by it? Counter acts each point the claimants rep. makes?

Coupon-mad

Hearing tips are in the NEWBIES thread. Does that help?

hyperlime

Thank you. Will update on outcome