Received county court claim form

stickytoffee_

Hello all,

Just received a claim form and looking for some much-needed guidance and advice.

Back story -
Ticket placed on the car for parking in a hatched area Jan ‘24. Albeit within this hatched area there are faded parking bays. Staff tend to double park in this area and leave their contact details. It was never an issue before so was surprised to receive a ticket. 

Foolishly ignored all correspondence from car parking partnership and DCBL as was advised for private parking firms this approach can be taken, but clearly this is no longer the case. In doing so it has now escalated to a claim being put in. 

What would my options be now, if any? 

Is it worth contesting or just pay up and be done with it? 

I’d like to avoid going to court if possible.

Thank you advance

Gr1pr

Do not pay, defend it by studying other recent Parking Eye DCB Legal court claims, starting with reading the newbies sticky thread post 2 and the early part of the defence template thread too, get the AOS done online this weekend

People might not want to go to court,  but this is the start of a claim,  not an ending 

Coupon-mad

Ticket placed on the car for parking in a hatched area Jan ‘24.

Almost unheard of for ParkingEye!

Use the SPECIAL start to the Template Defence for DCB Legal ParkingEye claims.

It's linked in the FIRST POST of the Template Defence thread. Very easy.

DO NOT ADD DETAIL ABOUT WHERE YOU PARKED OR MENTION HATCHED LINES OR A WINDSCREEN PCN.

Your facts (para 6) can just be that you are staff and are authorised to park or stop and have a permit and you deny breach.

Car1980

Just a point to keep in your mind for later on - it appears there are double yellow lines and you parked beyond them. 

What is the difference between hatched areas, hatched areas with a marked bay and double yellow lines? The onus is on them to make restrictions clear. Only double yellow lines generally mean no parking at any time (except for loading and blue badge displayers).

stickytoffee_

Thank you all for your response!

I have submitted the AOS on 01.04.2025


This is what I have drafted so far for my defence:

6. On the date in question, the Defendant parked in an area designated for staff permit holders only. As the Defendant is a staff member who was on duty at the time of the alleged offence and possesses a valid staff permit, they were authorised to park or stop their vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant denies any breach of regulations. 

 7. Upon entering the car park, the Defendant did not observe any signs indicating that the area was a private car park regulated by the Claimant. The Defendant did not see any signage specific to the Claimant. As a result, at the time of parking, the Defendant did not have a reasonable opportunity to review the Claimant's terms and conditions for the car park. The small signage was not suitable to alert motorists. Consequently, the Defendant could not knowingly agree to any contractual obligations.

8. In reference to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. (UNSURE WHETHER OR NOT I WOULD DENY THIS PARAGRAPH). No PCN was “issued on 04/01/2024” (the date of the visit). Whilst the Defendant is both the registered keeper and driver, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations. 

Is there anything else you would suggest adding or removing?

Thanks once again 

stickytoffee_

Coupon-mad said:

Ticket placed on the car for parking in a hatched area Jan ‘24.

Almost unheard of for ParkingEye!

I believe the hospital security staff physically go around and do this

Coupon-mad

Yes, remove this:

"Paragraph 2 is denied. (UNSURE WHETHER OR NOT I WOULD DENY THIS PARAGRAPH). No PCN was “issued on 04/01/2024” (the date of the visit)."

stickytoffee_

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, remove this:

"Paragraph 2 is denied. (UNSURE WHETHER OR NOT I WOULD DENY THIS PARAGRAPH). No PCN was “issued on 04/01/2024” (the date of the visit)."

In place of the above should I amend it to - Paragraph 2 is admitted, to the extent that a parking charge notice was affixed to the windscreen on 04/01/2024? 

However, I know you had stated previously about not mentioning a windscreen PCN.

Or should I leave it as admitted and move on to addressing the remainder of the POC.

Many thanks 

Coupon-mad

Don't admit.  Just remove that sentence.