PCN on Free car park at GP surgery during appointment as a patient

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 21/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 26/04/26 and before or on 10/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/05/26

Smellopee

Do I need a statement of truth at the end of my defence?

I am really confused about the counterclaim, I didn't think I'd have to state a specific amount, I thought the court would work out the amount? How do you put an amount on 'general damages for anxiety and distress' or 'disruption to preventative care pathway'?

Coupon-mad

Using MCOL to put in a defence, of course you don't need a statement of truth. The system covers that … otherwise no LiP defendant would know to add it and there'd be no justice if defences ended up failing or struck out, due to omitting a legalese sign-off that people don't know about.

Search the forum for results with the words:

Counterclaim Vento bands

Learn and crib from ones written before.

Smellopee

I would really appreciate if you could review the below counterclaim for me?

1. Introduction 1.1 The Defendant counterclaims for damages from the Claimant's sustained harassment of a BRCA gene carrier who underwent a preventative bilateral mastectomy, received wound care and PTSD treatment at the surgery whose car park the Claimant managed, for a debt it knew had no basis, under: (i) Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('PHA 1997'); (ii) Equality Act 2010 ('EA 2010'), the Defendant being disabled; and (iii) Data Protection Act 2018 ('DPA 2018') and UK GDPR.

2. Material facts 2.1 The Defendant is a BRCA gene carrier who in August 2023 underwent a preventative bilateral mastectomy with TUG flap reconstruction; complications required nursing care for six months. Her appointment on 23 November 2023 was part of that wound care. She was diagnosed with PTSD, receiving counselling and EMDR therapy from a Macmillan counsellor, and reliant on the surgery for ongoing BRCA monitoring. She was disabled under section 6 EA 2010: (i) physical impairment from surgery with six-month complications having a substantial long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities; and (ii) PTSD, listed in Government statutory guidance as a qualifying condition. CEL is a service provider under Part 3 EA 2010. The Defendant provided proof of appointment yet the Claimant sent 9 letters over 2.5 years causing: (a) sustained distress aggravating her PTSD; (b) over 90 hours managing correspondence; and (c) the Defendant to leave her GP surgery, losing her BRCA care pathway.

3. Legal claims 3.1 Harassment: Nine letters over 2.5 years demanding a proven baseless charge constitutes harassment under section 1 PHA 1997. A reasonable person knowing the charge was disproved and the recipient was in wound care and PTSD treatment would regard this as harassment. Section 40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 makes harassing a debtor by frequency or manner a criminal offence. 3.2 Discrimination: The Defendant claims (i) discrimination under section 15 EA 2010 — unfavourable treatment because of post-operative attendance without justification; and (ii) failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 EA 2010 — cancelling the charge was the reasonable adjustment; the Claimant failed. 3.3 Data protection: Proof of appointment constituted health data — special category data under Article 9 UK GDPR. Article 9(2)(f) requires the claim to be lawfully brought; as it was baseless, processing was unlawful. Distress compensation is claimed under section 168 DPA 2018 without establishing financial loss. The Defendant reserves the right to refer this to the ICO.

4. Damages 4.1 The Defendant claims: (a) general damages for anxiety and psychological harm — to be assessed having regard to PTSD diagnosis, Macmillan counselling, 2.5-year duration, and loss of GP surgery; (b) special damages for 90 hours — schedule to be served; (c) consequential losses from disruption to her BRCA care pathway; (d) aggravated damages — egregious conduct directed at a medically vulnerable patient whose proof was ignored for 2.5 years with proceedings issued knowing they cannot succeed; (e) distress compensation under section 168 DPA 2018 — to be assessed.

5. Injunctive relief 5.1 The Defendant applies for an injunction under section 3(3) PHA 1997 restraining the Claimant, its agents & debt collection partners from further contact regarding the alleged charge at the surgery car park on 23 November 2023.

6. Costs 6.1 The Defendant seeks costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). Pursuing a BRCA patient in active PTSD treatment for a charge rebutted at the outset across 2.5 years, 9 letters, and county court proceedings warrants an indemnity costs award. The Claimant's breach of its EA 2010 service provider and DPA 2018 data controller obligations each independently supports that finding.

Coupon-mad

Remove 5 because you are not applying for an injunction. That's expensive and beyond a lay person's ability.

Instead of 5, try this:

5. The causation is that the original parking charge was issued unfairly for lawful parking at the surgery car park on 23 November 2023. The ensuing bombardment of demands were in very frightening language designed to intimidate the recipient and offered no dispute resolution. This intimidation affected the Defendant so badly that she was so distressed that - to protect her health - she felt she had no choice but to leave the longstanding support of their GP surgery, because she dared not park there and had felt threatened on every visit.

You must state how much you are counterclaiming and (like I said) refer to the Vento bands to explain proportionality.

Smellopee

Thanks so much!

For the counterclaim I am thinking of going for £5000 cause I don't want to pay a higher fee than £205 and have given up on legal aid, do I need to give a specific breakdown in the 'My claim is for' part of the form now and £5000 is too 'round'?

is it right to assume that the court will only pay a max of £20 per hour on time spent on all the responses?

I was looking at the list of number plates entered on the day that CEL provided for the POPLA appeal and just realised that I might actually have tried to enter my reg twice (2 that seem to match at the time of appointment although part is hidden) but got it wrong (probably stress before appointment) should I use this for my defence or could it actually go against me and undermine my argument that signage isn't obvious?

Smellopee

Also can I reference exhibits in my defence & counterclaim?

Coupon-mad

No, exhibits come much later at WS stage.

And I think don't mention the list of number plates entered on the day because it does undermine your defence, unless you change your defence to state you think you did enter your VRM and that the C should have noticed what looks like a close match VRM on the log because you have now noticed it after all these years of intimidation. The entry looks close enough to be matched & accepted as a 'keying error' by any professional parking operator but instead the C redacted it (hid it at appeal stage).

Umkomaas

is it right to assume that the court will only pay a max of £20 per hour on time spent on all the responses

CPR current standard rate is £24.

Smellopee

What if I state that I can't remember either way (which I can't) so that if it's not mine signage is poor and if it is my failed entries and as they did offer me a reduced charge of £20 for major keying error which I refused to pay then they did recognise that it was a keying error and not a breach of contract?

Thing is the reduced rate of £20 came after I provided proof of appointment so I thought it was because I was a patient, they never demonstrated I did a keying error and used the records of number plates against me in the popla appeal to prove the system was working.