I have now posted copies of the N180 DQ to PE and the court and have a proof of posting certificate.

Thank you Nicky Boy for clarifying that I don't need to include the factual disputes. This was what I was, perhaps rather clumsily, asking for info on before - I had read the threads advised. I have now replied to the hospital parking people: Dear Dee, Once again I would like to thank you for your efforts trying to help with this. It is just a pity that Parking Eye are so economical with the truth. In your email of 21 Dec, you informed me that they had told you the following : Thanks again for your help

Thanks. I understand that I need to include that there are factual disputes and also it is complex as advised above and in the N180 DQ advise thread. However, the box for information about the nature of the factual disputes is quite small. I'm looking for pointers as to how much detail I should include here. In answer to post #86 my partner is actually the keeper but the driver's name has not been disclosed. One more update is that I received another email from the hospital parking people yesterday and I quote: I regret to advise that Parkingeye have refused to cancel the parking charge notice due to the stage that it was at (it had increased to £205). They have advised that as a good will gesture they have reduced the charge to £70 and have sent a letter confirming this. I am sorry that I was unable to assist further So PE have now changed their answer from telling the hospital that the judgement had gone to default and the court ruled in their favour to "the stage it was at". I think this is more evidence of them bending the truth and I will reply to the hospital to that effect. I think it's good that the hospital clearly wanted to cancel this ridiculous charge.

I have read everything that I could see on there and, maybe it's me, but I am unsure what to put here. I think we should answer "No" but do I just say that there are factual disputes, without listing them at this stage? I'm sorry but we really don't want to mess up at this stage. Maybe this is not the point at which to list them but if we do need to list them, this is what we have so far : 1. There was clearly no intention not to pay for parking as the driver paid an amount that they thought would more than cover the time period required. 2. The PCN does not comply with PoFA as they did not ask that the keeper paid the charge Schedule 4 S9 [2] [e] and there is no mention of the parking period - just an arrival and departure time. This is not the same thing as the elderly patient had to be collected from the A&E entrance and this all took time. I submit that the keeper cannot be pursued for the amount allegedly outstanding - only the driver is now liable and anyone with a valid motor insurance policy can drive that car. Courts accept that the keeper and driver are not necessarily the same person. I took this from post #11 so please confirm that this is all correct? 2. Having checked the hospital website, after getting the claim forms, it stated that extra time could be purchased after departing the carpark. This is not mentioned on any signage in the carpark. It is possible that this was not an available option on the relevant date and that it has been included more recently, in response to the government guidance. 3. I contacted the helpful people at the Royal Free hospital parking team and they said they couldn't intervene as PE told them that judgement had been entered against me and I quote 3. The signs which offer paybyphone also offer pay on exit, but this is in very small type and the signs are high up. 4. Sign type 4a (in PE docs) that states "additional car parking time can be added at any time" do not appear to be on display in the car park. I visited the carpark myself in Jan 24 following the receipt of these documents and I could see no signs of this nature in the carpark, despite looking thoroughly. If they were not obvious on a visit specifically to confrim the signage, they wouldn't be obvious to someone in a rush to see their elderly mother in hospital.

Thanks. Sorry I mistyped in post #78 and meant to say "no" to mediation and "yes" to small claims track. I am just unsure about suitability for determination without a hearing and if we say no which reasons to state. Other than that, all is clear and complete. AJJM

Sorry if I’m misunderstanding, but page 1 of the letter in my post #74 reads to me as needing to be responded to by both parties by 5/2/24. I can’t see anywhere that this is just a copy of what was sent to the claimant and only applies to them. This is cause of my confusion. It states at the top of the letter that if this isn’t complied with the court can strike out the claim or enter a judgment. My reading of the link sent above is that C1 needs to be completed to say it’s not suitable for small claims track and it all needs to be filed with the court by 5/2/24. With the upcoming holiday that means completing it this week.

Checked MCOLand it just says ‘DQ sent to you 18/1/24’. So these are for the claimant to answer. Interesting that this is so unclear! Huge thanks as always

Hi all, We have now received the N180 dated 18/1/24 along with info re mediation - all attached. It needs a response by 5 Feb but we are away 28/1/- 4/2. All advice gratefully received, as ever. court N180 to claimant.pdf

We think we should continue to fight this. It seems unreasonable to pay £70 for this slight overstay and I’m as sure as I can be that in their pack of documents is a sign that either isn’t there or is well hidden. I took pics of all the signs I could see, from entering the carpark and wandering around it. I realise there’s no guarantee, but I would like opinions on whether fighting it is worth a shout.

Just received the attached settlement offer from PE. Also took a trip to the car park. Took photos of all the signs I could see. Looking at the paperwork from PE I didn’t see any of Sign type 4a (PE docs in post #61) I doubt they are actually there. That one states additional car parking time can be purchased at any time. I did see on the pay by phone the option to pay on exit but the driver saw the pay by phone sign and, in haste to see their mother in A&E and the doctor, did not notice that - which is in much smaller type. Bearing in mind it was very late at night and dark and signs are quite high up. Will post photos in following post to show contrast, although even PEs pictures show this discrepancy on their print outs. Of course, in real life the sign are much less clear. PE settlement offer Jan 24.pdf Photos attached, as referenced in previous post. hospital car park pix.pdf

Thank you. Yes I did check MCOL, as advised, and nothing on there as yet.

The N180 from PE arrived today. They are clearly keen to press ahead. Copy attached PE N180 Jan 24.pdf

Happy New Year all. Today we received the PE notice to proceed with their reply to the defence, dated 21/12/23 Attached are the 43 pages enclosed with this notice. I will try to get some photos of how the parking signage looks at the hospital in the dark over the next week. I know that it is very poorly lit there at night. Your continued help is much appreciated. 2023-12-21 PE reply to defence.pdf

Yes we got a physical letter dated 13 Dec. I hope all the bank holidays count in the 28 days!

Last entry on Claim History says 'defence received'. Anywhere else to look?