Parking Eye - CCJ

Jiggernaught

Hello everyone, 
I'm a long time lingerer, first time poster.

I have an issue with Parking eye taking me to court for a hospital parking visit.
I'm certain I registered my license plate at the hospital's reception, but regardless, I have received a letter taking me to the count court, I don't have any letters prior to this.

I have read the forum and seen steps advised to take.
however, I am curious if my proof of hospital appointment and attending said appointment - (the hospital follow up letter) should be used as my evidence against these court proceedings or if I should go a different route with these con artists?

Any help will be hugely appreciated, I'm aware I haven't given myself much time to sort this out, I did register online with the court that I will be defending the case.
thanks in advance!

KeithP

Jiggernaught said:

I'm aware I haven't given myself much time to sort this out...

Correct. You haven't.

Jiggernaught said:

I did register online with the court that I will be defending the case.

Are you saying that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 10th January and before 28th January?
Your MCOL Claim History will confirm that.

If so, with a Claim Issue Date of 6th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the very last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

This could be your paragraph 3:


3.  The claim was the first letter to arrive, so it seems the Claimant may have sent correspondence to an old address at pre-action stage (they will be aware if this is the case.  The Defendant is having to guess).  This is important because - if so - it is averred that the Claimant has failed to follow the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) . The only explanation for the complete lack of a PCN or any reminder letters in 2024 is that they have later undertaken a cheap address search (28 pence, in bulk) realised the address was different, but not 'paused debt recovery and re-issued the PCN for appeal at the original rate' as is mandatory in the CoP.  It is also averred that if the Claimant is aware that (perhaps) this issue may have been caused by a VRM typo (a 'keying error', which they are required to carry out diligent checks for) they have not pleaded these facts and did not offer the £20 settlement which is mandatory in the CoP for major keying errors.  Not that the Defendant knows if this happened because they have seen no evidence.  It is denied that the vehicle was parked 'without authorisation' and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant is certain that they registered the vehicle at the hospital's reception and will produce proof of the hospital appointment, showing that clearly they were 'authorised'.

3.1.  Further, it is averred that this Claimant - the fifth-largest operator by revenue and the most prolific issuer of private PCNs in the UK, who admits in its latest accounts that it earns most of its turnover “from the issue of parking charge notices” is thus incentivised to issue PCNs at this location because it makes most/all of its money from penalising patients. This approach specifically breaches the official NHS car parking guidance, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles#:~:text=Free car parking for those with greatest need&text=in particular, must ensure that,in accordance with, that guidance

3.1.1....which says "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf. NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable. Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge notices only’."  This official guidance is mandatory and is there to protect frequent outpatient attenders such as the Defendant and also persons with 'protected characteristics' who meet the definition of disability. Again, this includes the Defendant (reasonable adjustments being required under statute, whether patients are blue badge holders or not).

3.2. The Defendant does meet the definition of disability.  They were attending the Colman Centre for Specialist Rehabilitation Services which the Claimant will indisputably know (because they placed ANPR cameras and a keypad system there) provides a wide range of post-acute inpatient and community services for patients with complex neurological disabilities due to a spinal injury, acquired brain injury or other neurological condition.  It is possible that a keying error may have occurred due to the Defendant's medical condition but if so, then they cannot be penalised for a typo because this would be an unfair term in the circumstances.  Clearly this system - placing an unfair burden on the typical motorist attending for an appointment - is not suitable for this particular Centre. It is averred that the charge is unfair under the meaning in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the court is reminded of its duty in s71) and this treatment of people with a long-term/recurring disability also breaches the Equality Act 2010.  Both are offences by ParkingEye for which the Defendant has a right to seek a financial remedy.

3.3. Further, the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim, but this was neither incurred as damages nor as part of any agreed contract.  The signs at this car park are sporadically placed on eight foot high poles and there is no warning (nor any information) about the risk of a PCN at the keypad itself, where VRMs are entered once inside the hospital. However, investigations show that any PCN sum here is £70. The £95 charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished). The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis - and in breach of the Equality Act 2010 - is reason enough to disallow the claim.

4.  (rest of Template Defence follows).


_____________________________________________________________

If I were you I would separately email enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk with copies of your appointments and tell them to read paragraph 3 of your defence and discontinue immediately.  And that you are sending a complaint to the CEO of the Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust which funds the Colman Centre, because this regime which places an unfair burden on likely disabled motorists is discriminatory, being a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and against the NHS Car Parking Guidance.

Jiggernaught

KeithP said:

Jiggernaught said:

I'm aware I haven't given myself much time to sort this out...

Correct. You haven't.

Jiggernaught said:

I did register online with the court that I will be defending the case.

Are you saying that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 10th January and before 28th January?
Your MCOL Claim History will confirm that.

If so, with a Claim Issue Date of 6th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the very last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Hi KeithP,
I did, I filed an Acknowledgement of Service on the 16th Jan 2025.
I've been struggling a lot with my health, so it's been incredibly hard for me to get on top of trying to deal with this.

Thank you for clarifying the exact date and even the time that I have to file the defence, that's really reassuring!

I will have a look at the thread now, thank you for your response.  

Coupon-mad

I've written your defence for you. See above.

Jiggernaught

Coupon-mad said:

This could be your paragraph 3:


3.  The claim was the first letter to arrive, so it seems the Claimant may have sent correspondence to an old address at pre-action stage (they will be aware if this is the case.  The Defendant is having to guess).  This is important because - if so - it is averred that the Claimant has failed to follow the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) . The only explanation for the complete lack of a PCN or any reminder letters in 2024 is that they have later undertaken a cheap address search (28 pence, in bulk) realised the address was different, but not 'paused debt recovery and re-issued the PCN for appeal at the original rate' as is mandatory in the CoP.  It is also averred that if the Claimant is aware that (perhaps) this issue may have been caused by a VRM typo (a 'keying error', which they are required to carry out diligent checks for) they have not pleaded these facts and did not offer the £20 settlement which is mandatory in the CoP for major keying errors.  Not that the Defendant knows if this happened because they have seen no evidence.  It is denied that the vehicle was parked 'without authorisation' and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant is certain that they registered the vehicle at the hospital's reception and will produce proof of the hospital appointment, showing that clearly they were 'authorised'.

3.1.  Further, it is averred that this Claimant - the fifth-largest operator by revenue and the most prolific issuer of private PCNs in the UK, who admits in its latest accounts that it earns most of its turnover “from the issue of parking charge notices” is thus incentivised to issue PCNs at this location because it makes most/all of its money from penalising patients. This approach specifically breaches the official NHS car parking guidance, here:



3.1.1....which says "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf. NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable. Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge notices only’."  This official guidance is mandatory and is there to protect frequent outpatient attenders such as the Defendant and also persons with 'protected characteristics' who meet the definition of disability. Again, this includes the Defendant (reasonable adjustments being required under statute, whether patients are blue badge holders or not).

3.2. The Defendant does meet the definition of disability.  They were attending the Colman Centre for Specialist Rehabilitation Services which the Claimant will indisputably know (because they placed ANPR cameras and a keypad system there) provides a wide range of post-acute inpatient and community services for patients with complex neurological disabilities due to a spinal injury, acquired brain injury or other neurological condition.  It is possible that a keying error may have occurred due to the Defendant's medical condition but if so, then they cannot be penalised for a typo because this would be an unfair term in the circumstances.  Clearly this system - placing an unfair burden on the typical motorist attending for an appointment - is not suitable for this particular Centre. It is averred that the charge is unfair under the meaning in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the court is reminded of its duty in s71) and this treatment of people with a long-term/recurring disability also breaches the Equality Act 2010.  Both are offences by ParkingEye for which the Defendant has a right to seek a financial remedy.

3.3. Further, the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim, but this was neither incurred as damages nor as part of any agreed contract.  The signs at this car park are sporadically placed on eight foot high poles and there is no warning (nor any information) about the risk of a PCN at the keypad itself, where VRMs are entered once inside the hospital. However, investigations show that any PCN sum here is £70. The £95 charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished). The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis - and in breach of the Equality Act 2010 - is reason enough to disallow the claim.

4.  (rest of Template Defence follows).


_____________________________________________________________

If I were you I would separately email enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk with copies of your appointments and tell them to read paragraph 3 of your defence and discontinue immediately.  And that you are sending a complaint to the CEO of the Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust which funds the Colman Centre, because this regime which places an unfair burden on likely disabled motorists is discriminatory, being a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and against the NHS Car Parking Guidance.

Coupon-mad,
This is a phenomenal response.
I am looking at the link KeithP shared and have this 3rd paragraph saved to apply to my defence.
I cannot thank you enough, I feel confident that any solicitor with common sense will read this and surely give up.

Thank you greatly.

Jiggernaught

Coupon-mad said:

I've written your defence for you. See above.

I was slow at replying as I was reading, saved it and now going through the MCOL site, thank you so much for doing this!

Coupon-mad

You aren't using MCOL any more.  The defence is to be emailed as a PDF.

Read the 'first 12 steps' in the Template Defence thread.

Jiggernaught

Coupon-mad said:

You aren't using MCOL any more.  The defence is to be emailed as a PDF.

Read the 'first 12 steps' in the Template Defence thread.

I have copied and pasted the template defence thread & added the paragraph 3 you so kindly wrote for me.
I'll make sure to edit the claim no, claimant and defendant details before I send this to them.
(I removed the url you provided just for this MSE forum example as I'm too new to post url's)


"Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3.  The claim was the first letter to arrive, so it seems the Claimant may have sent correspondence to an old address at pre-action stage (they will be aware if this is the case.  The Defendant is having to guess).  This is important because - if so - it is averred that the Claimant has failed to follow the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) . The only explanation for the complete lack of a PCN or any reminder letters in 2024 is that they have later undertaken a cheap address search (28 pence, in bulk) realised the address was different, but not 'paused debt recovery and re-issued the PCN for appeal at the original rate' as is mandatory in the CoP.  It is also averred that if the Claimant is aware that (perhaps) this issue may have been caused by a VRM typo (a 'keying error', which they are required to carry out diligent checks for) they have not pleaded these facts and did not offer the £20 settlement which is mandatory in the CoP for major keying errors.  Not that the Defendant knows if this happened because they have seen no evidence.  It is denied that the vehicle was parked 'without authorisation' and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant is certain that they registered the vehicle at the hospital's reception and will produce proof of the hospital appointment, showing that clearly they were 'authorised'.

3.1.  Further, it is averred that this Claimant - the fifth-largest operator by revenue and the most prolific issuer of private PCNs in the UK, who admits in its latest accounts that it earns most of its turnover “from the issue of parking charge notices” is thus incentivised to issue PCNs at this location because it makes most/all of its money from penalising patients. This approach specifically breaches the official NHS car parking guidance, here:

(url)

3.1.1....which says "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf. NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable. Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge notices only’."  This official guidance is mandatory and is there to protect frequent outpatient attenders such as the Defendant and also persons with 'protected characteristics' who meet the definition of disability. Again, this includes the Defendant (reasonable adjustments being required under statute, whether patients are blue badge holders or not).

3.2. The Defendant does meet the definition of disability.  They were attending the Colman Centre for Specialist Rehabilitation Services which the Claimant will indisputably know (because they placed ANPR cameras and a keypad system there) provides a wide range of post-acute inpatient and community services for patients with complex neurological disabilities due to a spinal injury, acquired brain injury or other neurological condition.  It is possible that a keying error may have occurred due to the Defendant's medical condition but if so, then they cannot be penalised for a typo because this would be an unfair term in the circumstances.  Clearly this system - placing an unfair burden on the typical motorist attending for an appointment - is not suitable for this particular Centre. It is averred that the charge is unfair under the meaning in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the court is reminded of its duty in s71) and this treatment of people with a long-term/recurring disability also breaches the Equality Act 2010.  Both are offences by ParkingEye for which the Defendant has a right to seek a financial remedy.

3.3. Further, the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim, but this was neither incurred as damages nor as part of any agreed contract.  The signs at this car park are sporadically placed on eight foot high poles and there is no warning (nor any information) about the risk of a PCN at the keypad itself, where VRMs are entered once inside the hospital. However, investigations show that any PCN sum here is £70. The £95 charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished). The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis - and in breach of the Equality Act 2010 - is reason enough to disallow the claim."

Jiggernaught

I've also just added paragraph's 4 to 30 and the statement of truth.

Coupon-mad

Perfect.  Sign it electronically or take a photo of your signature and add that into your word doc, re-sized.  Date it, then save it as a PDF.