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

Bazarius

I’m going by the OP’s admission that they forgot to enter their VRM at the terminal. It’s not a keying error as such but was a genuine user of the facilities. It is still a breach of contract . But questionable on reasonableness - the landowners are at fault too for allowing CEL to target its own patients to make profit for their shareholders.

“Got a PCN from Civil enforcement ltd because I forgot to enter my reg when I parked at my GP surgery car park reserved for patients to attend an appointment. I provided proof of appointment so they reduced fine to £20 which I refused to pay cause this car park was built for patients use and CEL were supposedly brought in to ensure patients could access it and locals wouldn’t use it.”

It’s not an attack against you - it’s my own opinion and vast experience of doing counterclaims. But as CM believes you may have a case - I hope you succeed- keep us updated .

Coupon-mad

I doubt it says in the landowner authority that CEL can charge £20 admin fees anyway, and it looks like the OP didn't forget, just made a typo.

Oh yes - add to the defence that you disputed it and that you had protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Reasonable adjustments are a legal duty for service providers.

Smellopee

@James_Poisson @Bazarius I have no idea what happened on that day, I was a right state. They have been chasing me on the basis I did not obtain a parking permit but looking in detail at their evidence in the popla appeal only this weekend, it looks like I did try. I do appreciate your time.

@coupon-mad this is the defence I have, I am sorry for not just going with the template but because of the counterclaim I worry it needs to be more specific:

1. Procedural deficiencies and standing
1.1 The Claimant's Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16 paragraphs 3 and 7. The Defendant invites a strike out under CPR 3.4. In CEL v Chan (E7GM9W44) HHJ Murch held that the Particulars “did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract”; in CPMS v Akande (K0DP5J30) HHJ Evans held “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies.” Both apply directly. The Claimant is put to strict proof of: (a) a valid landowner contract on 23 Nov. 2023; (b) written landowner authority to access DVLA data under the KADOE contract; and (c) a landowner-confirmed site boundary map. Without this, the Claimant has no standing. The Claimant's delay has caused evidential prejudice to the Defendant regarding the contemporaneous signage; that prejudice lies entirely with the Claimant.

2. No contract was formed
2.1 Where signage does not effectively communicate its terms at the point of parking, no contract capable of acceptance by conduct is formed: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163; Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416.
2.2 At the location where the Defendant parked on 23 Nov. 2023, the signs requiring number plate registration could not be read from the Defendant's parking position. No offer was communicated, no contract formed, no obligation arose.
2.3 The permit screen was concealed around a corner from the patient arrival screen. The check-in screen directs patients to a separate permit screen elsewhere in the building; a patient checking in, in the expected manner, had no means of locating it. This is the concealed pitfall distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
2.4 The BPA Code requires signs readable throughout the site at the time of parking. Consumer Rights Act 2015 sections 62 and 71 impose mandatory fairness and transparency duties; Schedule 2 examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 identify potentially unfair terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
2.5 The Claimant has produced a partially redacted permit screen log showing two entries bearing partial similarity to the Defendant's registration. A Subject Access Request under Article 15 UK GDPR for the unredacted data and standard disclosure of the full log have been required. If either entry is the Defendant’s, it demonstrates two genuine attempts to comply defeated by a system failure. If neither is hers, two near-identical partial matches from other users on the same day evidence a defective system constituting a concealed trap.

3. No breach: authorised user and estoppel
3.1 The car park is free of charge for patients. The Claimant's own signage is headed BARBOURNE HEALTH SERVICES & PHARMACY PATIENT PARKING ONLY. The Defendant attended on 23 Nov. 2023 for post-operative wound care following a preventative bilateral mastectomy, precisely the category for whose benefit the car park exists. She provided proof of appointment; the Claimant was on express notice that she was an authorised patient. No commercially rational construction of a patient car park’s terms could result in such a patient being in breach: Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36.
3.2 On 6 Dec. 2023 the Claimant offered to reduce the charge to £20 under BPA paragraph 17.4, stating ‘this situation is considered to be a major keying error because your vehicle registration mark was not entered properly, or at all, or for some other reason.’ The Claimant thereby: (a) classified the Defendant as a legitimate user; (b) acknowledged its own Code provided a specific remedy; and (c) represented in writing that the charge arose from a registration failure, not a breach. The Claimant is estopped from asserting an inconsistent case. No contract was breached. Further, a character substitution of similar letters is a minor keying error under BPA paragraph 17.4A, not a major one, obliging cancellation at no cost. The Claimant misclassified the error, and the correct outcome was cancellation.

4. No recoverable sum
4.1 The signage states UP TO £100 and that additional debt recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 days. The sum claimed is £170. The £70 addition is irrecoverable for four independent reasons: (a) the sign was unreadable from the Defendant's parking position, no term was communicated; (b) the clause fails CRA 2015 section 62, imposing unquantified liability without any figure or method of calculation; (c) Beavis paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 confirmed the original charge encompassed all enforcement costs, adding debt collection fees is double recovery condemned in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) paragraphs 419-428; and (d) the £70 was triggered by non-payment within a 28-day window that ran without the Defendant's knowledge as no Notice to Driver was served.
4.2 Even if a breach were established (denied), the charge must satisfy Cavendish Square v Makdessi; ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The car park is free with no revenue; a patient attending causes zero loss; a charge unrelated to actual loss is not a genuine pre-estimate: Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC 79. The legitimate interest, patient use, was not threatened by the Defendant. Penalising her serves no legitimate purpose.
4.3 The £32.75 interest is an impermissible double recovery. Beavis paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 confirmed the charge more than covered all enforcement costs. ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), affirmed by the CoA, held at paragraphs 419-428 that adding letter-chain costs was disproportionate and penal. See paragraph 3.4 of HHJ Moloney's Beavis judgment defining “costs of the operation.”

5. POFA 2012
5.1 No Notice to Driver was issued. POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) caps recovery at the charge as it stood on 23 Nov. 2023: £100. The £70 accrued only upon non-payment within 28 days of a notice not yet received and is not recoverable. POFA Explanatory Note 221: “The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5)).” The claim exceeds the statutory maximum. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper was issued within 28-56 days with all prescribed statutory wording; any failure means keeper liability does not arise.

6. Interest and costs
6.1 No sum is owed and no interest arises. The court is invited to decline its section 69 discretion given the Claimant’s pursuit of a medically vulnerable patient with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 forover two years after receiving proof of appointment. The Defendant seeks unreasonable conduct costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Claimant discontinue, the Defendant will seek costs on the same basis, noting the White Book annotation to CPR 38.6 that costs may be awarded on discontinuance where a party has behaved unreasonably.

Smellopee

This is the counterclaim:

1. The Defendant counterclaims 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, for damages from the Claimant’s sustained harassment of a BRCA gene carrier who in Aug. 2023 underwent a preventative bilateral mastectomy; complications required nursing care for 6 months. Her appointment on 23 Nov. 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 6 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) distress aggravating her PTSD; (b) over 100 hours managing correspondence; and (c) the Defendant to leave her GP surgery, losing her BRCA care pathway. On 6 Dec. 2023 the Claimant offered £20 under BPA paragraph 17.4, acknowledging the Defendant was a legitimate user and the charge arose from a registration failure, confirming its own Code classified this as a keying error.

2. Legal claims
2.1 Harassment: 9 letters over 2.5 years demanding a proven baseless charge constitutes harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 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.

2.2 Discrimination: (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. Damages under section 119 EA 2010 include injury to feelings by reference to the Vento bands.

2.3 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 under section 168 DPA 2018 requires no proof of financial loss. The Defendant reserves the right to refer this to the ICO.

3. Damages: The original parking charge issued unfairly for lawful parking at the surgery car park on 23 Nov. 2023, and the ensuing bombardment of demands in terrifying language designed to intimidate and offering no dispute resolution, caused severe distress, compelling the Defendant to leave her BRCA care pathway and GP surgery, as she dared not park there and felt threatened on every visit. Damages not exceeding £9,999: (a) general damages: PTSD diagnosis, Macmillan counselling, 2.5-year duration, loss of GP surgery, to be assessed; (b) special damages for 100+ 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; (e) injury to feelings under section 119 EA 2010, lower Vento band, to be assessed; (f) distress compensation under section 168 DPA 2018, to be assessed.

4. Costs: The Defendant seeks costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). Pursuing £202.75 after a £20 BPA paragraph 17.4 offer, declined as no sum was owed, across 2.5 years, 9 letters, and county court proceedings against a BRCA patient in active PTSD treatment constitutes unreasonable conduct warranting an indemnity costs award. The Claimant’s breach of its EA 2010 service provider and DPA 2018 data controller obligations each support that finding.

Smellopee

@Coupon-mad
@James_Poisson @Bazarius
These are the legal basis I am looking at for the counterclaim:

1. Damages for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, including general damages for anxiety and distress, special damages for time expended, consequential losses arising from loss of access to her GP surgery and disruption to her BRCA preventative care pathway, and aggravated damages, all to be assessed;

2. Damages for disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, including injury to feelings damages assessed within the lower Vento band, to be assessed;

3. Compensation for distress arising from unlawful processing of special category health data under section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, to be assessed;

4. An injunction under section 3(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 restraining further harassment;

5. Such further relief as the court considers appropriate under section 119 of the Equality Act 2010;

6. Costs on an indemnity basis or such other basis as the court sees fit.

If time spent is 100h at £24/hour = £2400 and I don't want to go over £5000 and considering below:

General damages for anxiety and PTSD aggravation: at the lower end of the Judicial College Guidelines for a less severe psychiatric injury, awards start at around £1,540 and run to approximately £5,500 for a moderately severe case. A figure of £3,500 to £5,000 is conservative but credible for a two and a half year campaign against a PTSD patient.

It seems reasonable to be looking at £2600 for damages? Do i need to split that amount amongst the listed above?

Smellopee

Have received the Directions Questionnaire. Would it be relevant to have as witnesses:
- Someone in the same situation as me who also got a PCN for parking as a patient
- A friend who witnessed an elderly man coming in the surgery the day following the appointment, having realised he forgot to input his number plate and begging the receptionist for help as he couldn't afford the fine.

?

Coupon-mad

Yes if they will turn up to your hearing. No if not, because it would be treated as hearsay.

Smellopee

I am confused as to which claimant contact I should use to send the questionnaire. I had an email from legal@ce-service.co.uk for their defence but the claim court is signed by (Removed by Forum Team), head of legal as the claimant's legal representative, or should it be DCBL, or should I send to all three if so do you have their email? Could it be legal@dcbltd.com? Thank you!

Coupon-mad

DCBL aren't involved.

Make sure you send the DQ to the named local court, not the CNBC (things are a bit different with counterclaims).

What fee did you pay for the counterclaim?

Show us the defence to counterclaim.

Smellopee

@Coupon-mad Attaching their defence. They are no mentioning the fact it might actually be a minor keying error.

1.png

2.png

3.png

4.png

I paid £200 something to claim £5000 , it's midway the lower vento band so I think it's justifiable. I have a letter from my macmillan counsellor confirming symptoms of PTSD and EMDR therapy. I also have all the paperwork to prove surgery and complications. I have all the paperwork to say I did provide proof and reason for appointment. I have been given an email address from the civil county court that has received the claim. In the defense post it says i also have to send the questionnaire to the claimant legal representative, that's what i am confused about.

I have a photograph of where i parked and they are no signs nearby, found a photograph online where the signs are partially blocked because the bushes underneath aren't maintained. The sign is headed 'patients only car park' with a much smaller subheading saying patients must obtain a permit. i have a photograph of the permit screen being hidden around the corner from the surgery registration screen. They are multiple reviews on google and facebook of patients complaining about being fined at the surgery, several news articles from the local news paper, you even made a post about the surgery on this forum, can I use all these as evidence in my witness statement?