Not a hospital car park

fineclaret

My initial draft WS (composed on a park bench after a night spent sleeping in a hedge!   Literally tramping...).

1) My daughter had been taken to Whiston Hospital A&E on xxxxxx with a severe illness: painful coughing, a fever. After she had spent some 20 hours on a trolley in A&E, on oxygen, my wife and I drove to Whiston the following day, to relieve her boyfriend and allow him to return home briefly.

2) Signs directed us to what was clearly signed as “Whiston Hospital Car Park” (see photos below), accessed through a NHS Staff parking area.

3) Signs clearly stated that payment for parking was by “Online Or Phone Payment Only”. Therefore, after selecting a bay, my wife commenced the laborious process of first downloading the App and then, when this approach failed, using the web-based version. Phone signal was patchy; we had to move away from the car to complete the process. I estimate that it took about 10 minutes from entering the car park to completing the transaction.

4) We paid for two hours’ parking, at £1 per hour. Our reasonable understanding was that this time commenced on payment, as would be standard in a ticketed car park.

5) We entered the hospital and sat with our daughter. As we were about to leave, she was finally, after nearly 24 hours in A&E, admitted to a ward. We accompanied her as she was wheeled to the ward, which slightly delayed our return.

6) The ward was in the opposite direction to the car park, adding a further few minutes to our return. Clearly our daughter’s health, and not the to-the-second timing of our return to the vehicle, was our main concern. Our daughter was diagnosed with mycoplasmal pneumonia, which necessitated four further days in hospital; it was evidently sufficiently serious to be a legitimate concern.

7) Subsequently we received the first of numerous notices from the Claimant. These were based on time-stamped photographs, with the period of overstay calculated from the precise moment of entry, not the time of payment which was (as noted) some 10 minutes later.

8) I appealed to the car park company. They rejected this appeal. I asked them for the actual time of payment; this was not provided, and it is all based upon exact time of entry, not of payment.

9) I appealed to the hospital PALS office. They informed me (see email) that they have no jurisdiction over this car park – essentially it is not, despite clear signage suggesting otherwise, a hospital car park. Note the desire to change the ‘very misleading’ signage, and the technicality that, if they don’t use the NHS logo, the NHS is powerless to influence this.

10) Motorist’s view on approach. Note the sign, clearly but deceptively indicating this as a hospital car park for patients and visitors. The area from which this is taken is an NHS staff car park, complete with NHS logo. One passes almost imperceptibly from an area which is NHS managed, to one which is not. The clear intention is to have people believe that this is official hospital parking. They even use “NHS blue”!

11) Close up of the sign on the right. This clearly shows that payment must be “Online Or Phone”. No tickets are issued. But nowhere does it indicate that the clock starts ticking at the moment of entry, not of payment.

12) Close up of ‘payment area’. The sign “Pay here” points at the ground, and is closer to the board indicating online process than to the little black box that may be its intended target. It suggests, by use of the “contactless” logo, that it may be possible to pay by card, perhaps using that little black box, but we have already been told on entry that payment is “Online Or Phone Only”. The main sign reiterates the means of payment as by app.

13) The notional missed charge amounts to one pound, the amount we should, blessed with foresight, have added to our initial outlay of two pounds. Nobody sets out to deceive or defraud a company in the matter of one pound. It is clear that our slight delay in returning to the vehicle was circumstantial, with strong grounds for mitigation in view of concerns over our daughter’s health. It is absurd for a company to be able to conjure a debt of hundreds of pounds from such a trivial overstay. This is, I am aware, how this company makes its money: by a notional hourly charge followed by pursuit of serially inflated sums for those unfortunates who miss their deadline.

14) Court is the first opportunity I have to seek independent review, at which point the debt has inevitably risen to a ridiculous level, as the Claimant piles charge upon charge. I request that this claim be struck down in its entirety on the following grounds

a. The overstay is trivial, when taking account of the 10 minute delay in initiating payment (the time from which one may reasonably assume the paid-for time to begin) and the industry standard 10 minutes’ grace on return.

b. The Claimant's initial financial loss in this matter is negligible: the alleged debt is purely a product of subsequent process.

c. There are clear mitigating circumstances causing our slight delay, in relation to our daughter’s health.

d. The signage is deceptive, I would suggest deliberately so. It is clear that one is being invited to view this as official hospital parking; with that impression comes the belief that a hospital would act sympathetically in a health matter.

Coupon-mad

That'll be good as the middle bit...

The photos should all be separate, numbered exhibits.

You don't seem to have added the usual exhibits recommended in the WS section of the NEWBIES thread?

And there's no intro in your draft, nor standard ending about costs as you'd see when doing the search that the NEWBIES thread suggests (always filter searches to show NEWEST).

You also need a separate, signed & dated costs assessment. Loads of examples on the forum!

fineclaret

Coupon-mad said:

That'll be good as the middle bit...

The photos should all be separate, numbered exhibits.

You don't seem to have added the usual exhibits recommended in the WS section of the NEWBIES thread?

And there's no intro in your draft, nor standard ending about costs as you'd see when doing the search that the NEWBIES thread suggests (always filter searches to show NEWEST).

You also need a separate, signed & dated costs assessment. Loads of examples on the forum!

Ta. As I say, prepared on a park bench, between a night in a hedge and a long hike!

Coupon-mad

Kudos!      

fineclaret

Coupon-mad said:

That'll be good as the middle bit...

The photos should all be separate, numbered exhibits.

You don't seem to have added the usual exhibits recommended in the WS section of the NEWBIES thread?

And there's no intro in your draft, nor standard ending about costs as you'd see when doing the search that the NEWBIES thread suggests (always filter searches to show NEWEST).

You also need a separate, signed & dated costs assessment. Loads of examples on the forum!

I omitted costs because I have not really incurred any - and reading other threads, they are hardly ever awarded. As to the references to court cases, I am really hamstrung because - silly me - I omitted to stick things like the PoC in my rucksack. I can get my wife to photograph and send of course, if she can find them. Good job my wife opened my mail, else I'd have got home to a done deal, with the bailiffs round, thanks to the judge and his arbitrary ignoring of my N180.

Coupon-mad

OK leave out the costs but add the top and bottom to the WS and the usual exhibits.

You don't need the POC.

Recent winning WS are on threads by:

@Harry77

@imulsion

@Defendant911

fineclaret

Coupon-mad said:

OK leave out the costs but add the top and bottom to the WS and the usual exhibits.

You don't need the POC.

Recent winning WS are on threads by:

@Harry77

@imulsion

@Defendant911

Don't need the PoC? I thought recent strike outs were on the poorness and nonspecifity of this? Chan, etc?

fisherjim

fineclaret said:

Coupon-mad said:

OK leave out the costs but add the top and bottom to the WS and the usual exhibits.

You don't need the POC.

Recent winning WS are on threads by:

@Harry77

@imulsion

@Defendant911

Don't need the PoC? I thought recent strike outs were on the poorness and nonspecifity of this? Chan, etc?

I think your POC is quite comprehensive from what I can see (it is a little over redacted).

fineclaret

The redacted parts here are their reference followed by a date (so for example CNxxx 25.12.25) - not even 'on'. No times. It looks pretty generic, with placeholders for 4 variables it could apply to any case anywhere. Doesn't accurately represent the facts - it sounds like I wandered in and never paid.

Coupon-mad

fineclaret said:

Ah ... I never saw this in July when I think I was on holiday. Interesting that they are filing their own claims. Very rare. No legal fees added because they are doing these in-house.

I don't expect much professionalism. She looks like an estate agent based on her other company. But that's not especially poorly pleaded. It says what the allegation is and that's what you must respond to.

I also think the introduction of your WS should explain your absence from the Directions Hearing and state that, given your absence from the UK was known to the court and was stated in your N180, you respectfully ask the court to use its case management powers and discretion to grant your wife (her full name) rights of audience for the Directions Hearing so that the basis of defence can be heard and the case listed for a full hearing after DATE (choose a date a good week after your return, not the day you fly home!).