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.

OneMaccChap

Well, this is well overdue for an update. When I last visited the forum, for some reason, the forum had an issue, and I couldn't post anything on desktop or mobile. Fingers crossed this gets out to you.

Sequence of events since last update follows (Expand spoiler tags for redacted communications):

21 June

• Receive letter containing Judgement for Claimant (in default). Obviously, this was a complete shock, having filed the defence in good time. I had to put the sleuthing hat on and do a bit of digging, and luckily, the first place I visited was the MCOL website, which listed the case as having been set aside on the same day as the judgment was made.

23rd June

• Receive letter containing General Directions Order & General form of judgment or order, both stating it is ordered that the judgment be set aside because a defence had been filed prior to the judgment being entered. Makes you wonder how often this happens; That they don't actually do a quick search of the ol' email servers for the case number before proceeding... Very unprofessional, and I have to wonder how many poor souls have had this happen and coughed up to the claimant, only to receive the setting aside letter. At that point, I imagine the funds sitting in DCB's bank account would be very, very hard to recover. To say I was incensed at this mishandling of the case would be an understatement, as the erroneous judgment in default set my partner into a fearful and emotional spiral once again, which was entirely unnecessary.

24th June

• Receive letter containing acknowledgement of receipt of defence, which would be served on the claimant.

22nd July

• Receive email from DCB representative, informing that they intend to proceed with the claim, attaching their copy of the N180, and offering to discuss out of court settlement within 7 days. I have ignored their offer, their email, and awaited the court copy of the N180. I note that they consider the case suitable for determination without hearing (naturally, don't give the victim a voice...), that their representative for mediation is "TBC", and they do not wish to use any form of expert evidence.

08th August

• Receive letter containing Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, along with the defendant's copy of the N180 form.

And this is where we stand as of right now. I am content with the direction in the Newbies thread/Coupon-mad's post from February, and will be filing the N180 on Thursday. I have but a couple of questions:

1.  My partner cannot defend herself at mediation or a hearing. I can enter my details for the mediation appointment; however, that is not the case for the hearing. Other than checking the box for a vulnerability, and then expanding on this in the reasoning box given, there seems to be no way to express a desire to be represented at a hearing (at this stage). Could anyone here offer advice on whether the above would be the correct manner in which to proceed at present?
2. The entry fields for dates unavailable for mediation, and to an even greater extent, the hearing, are pitifully small. Given that my partner works almost every day, on an appointment basis, and I work long shifts on an inconsistent week-by-week schedule, the space is insufficient. Would the CNBC accept availability dates as an appendix, or would this be unable to be accepted?

As ever, huge thanks to all who have contributed this far, and in advance for subsequent contributions.

Coupon-mad

1. The case will be discontinued anyway. You can take the Mediation call for your partner. There will be no hearing.

You'll win. Keep going!

2.  Attach it as an appendix and if you get NEW unavailable dates after the joke Mediation call (re-read the first 8 steps in the Template Defence thread!) then email any new unavailable dates arising after that call, to the LOCAL Court as an when the dates crop up 

Remember this reply I gave you months ago? There will be no hearing! Not sure why you are worried?

Coupon-mad said:

Yep. This is the end game.

...

A complete cinch. 

Case will either end up struck out by the court or discontinued in the Autumn. No hearing. 

FINALLY:

We really hope you are intending to join us to do the Public Consultation to change the Government's fairly damaging proposals?

You sound perfect as a person who should vent about this appalling scam set up that conspired and corralled your partner to court.

See the thread all about it. Please bookmark it now. No link needed, it's a thread by me on page one right now. The Government Consultation is open for this month only.