Partner of nervous disposition being chased for an overstay of 1 minute

OneMaccChap

Gr1pr said:

You didn't redact the password,  I suggest that you do and replace the picture above in line with the forum advice in the yellow banners  

Done. Didn't think it was any use to anyone without the case no, but have redacted now.

Will be doing the follow up actions this evening, without delay. Thanks all. 

Coupon-mad

OneMaccChap said:

Gr1pr said:

You didn't redact the password,  I suggest that you do and replace the picture above in line with the forum advice in the yellow banners  

Done. Didn't think it was any use to anyone without the case no, but have redacted now.

Will be doing the follow up actions this evening, without delay. Thanks all. 

Make sure she uses the DCB Legal ParkingEye defence starting paragraphs with Chan and Akande.

Linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

OneMaccChap

Just hopping on here to confirm we've responded to the AOS, following the guide.

I have some time off over the bank holiday weekend to prep the draft defence. Expect to see me back early next week to ensure I'm not making any glaring errors with it.

As ever, thanks very much, all, for the support and advice.

Archergirl

Can you just tell her its all settled? That will stop her worrying or will se need to see proof?

OneMaccChap

Afternoon all.

I do apologise for the delay; various occurrences have meant that this is coming to you much later than planned, however, I'm still within the deadline. Would appreciate it if you could cast your eye over the following, for point 6, cont. of the DCB Legal ParkingEye defence template:

For clarity: 

• My partner appealed the PCN. I believe she missed a deadline to use POPLA, so this was through the parking scheme. It was denied. Unfortunately, I can't find any of the paperwork relating to this, so I haven't included anything about it. If this appeal is of relevance, I can include it, though with minimal detail.
• I have removed any reference in the defence to the 20-minute free parking. As it has been suggested, this should perhaps not be considered as an addition to the paid parking time - an argument I accept fully, having reviewed the signage. There is still a very strong case that there was no overstay, as can be seen below.
• The "No unauthorised parking" signage is now forward-facing, though it was not at the time of the visit (likely as prompted by review of cases, such as this one). I may want to make mention of this change in orientation, after the fact, in the text, if it gives rise to the argument from DCB Legal that the signs are, in fact, forward-facing.
• When paying for the parking, my partner clearly somehow paid for the wrong stay time. I make this clear in the text. I believe this was an effect of poor clarity on the part of the app, as I don't believe she would so clearly pay for a wrong time of arrival. This point may need to be amended if we feel there's more detail needed.

---

6. The defendant visited [Redacted] Hospital, [Redacted] on 15/11/2022 for a scheduled appointment with the Pain Management team at 13:00.

7. On entry to the site, the defendant was delayed in traffic queueing to enter onto the car park, and subsequently, further delayed actually finding an open parking bay, such to the point that they arrived late to the appointment. There was therefore a substantial delay between the timing of the ANPR photograph taken and the event of actually parking. To quote the NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, “Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control”. As such, the ANPR time does not constitute confirmation of parking, and is therefore not valid to this case.

8. Signage on site is inadequate, vague, and not prominently displayed. Some signs refer to “No unauthorised parking”, without definition as to what would constitute as such. This particular signage is displayed on entry, to moving vehicles, and is placed adjacent to the direction of travel, making it impossible for drivers to acknowledge or agree to any terms given. Furthermore, terms listed on this signage are all in such minuscule small-print that reading them is challenging, even to a pedestrian at rest, quite besides a mobile motorist at a distance. Additionally, given the dull, overcast, and rainy November day in question, coupled with a lack of sufficient, direct lighting to relevant signage around the hospital site, the legibility of said signage is insufficient. It is quite possible to park at this site without seeing any relevant T&C signs.

9. As per signage, the defendant paid on exit, via app, for a 2-hour stay, at the earliest possible opportunity. It is conceded that the “parking started” time is listed as 3:14 PM, with an end time of 5:14 PM. This is due to a lack of sufficient instruction, other than “Pay on exit”. Following the assumptions of a reasonable person, payment was therefore made, on exit, which the app subsequently processed with a parking duration of 2 hours, starting from the point of payment. No fault can be apportioned to the defendant for this failure of the app to allocate the correct start time.

10. On conclusion of their appointment, the defendant immediately left the car park and was further delayed exiting by queueing traffic. Referring again to the NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, this delay was beyond the bounds of the defendant's control. Given that there were delays both pre- and post-parking, parking was in fact not overstayed, and no parking charge notice should have been issued. To quantify the delays experienced, the time of successful parking was 13:14, 19 minutes after the ANPR noted entry time. The subsequent ANPR exit time of 15:17 represents a minimum, and completely reasonable 3-minute delay, between leaving the car park and reaching the ANPR point. The actual delay, however, was greater, due to queueing traffic. This schedule of events represents a parked period of less than 2 hours, the duration of which was paid for in full, and therefore, no loss has been suffered. It is once again reiterated that the duration of a parking term cannot be judged via ANPR photography, as this does not capture any delays to park or exit, and is therefore invalid as evidence in this case.

---

Para 4 of the defence template follows, re-numbered as point 11.

Your valued feedback is very much appreciated.

Thank you again, all, for the support thus far and continuing forward.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove para 9 completely. The rest is good!

Car1980

Remember the particulars state no reason for the PCN and you are arguing that they are insufficient. But then you go into quite a lot of detail and sounds like you are confirming there was an overstay? Save it all for the witness statement.

I'd just cut it down to one paragraph, 2 or 3 sentences and drily state that you entered,
took 10 minutes to find a space as it was busy, paid the right amount, visited the hospital and returned on time and then took 10 minutes (or whatever) to leave as it was still extremely busy.