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?

Update: 1. Received an acknowledgement of our defence from the HM Courts and Tribunal service dated 13/12/23 and saying PE have been served with a copy and have 28 days to deceide whether to proceed. 2. Received a follow up from hospital parking team with cheeky response from PE: Parkingeye have now feed back to me and have confirmed that payment was made on arrival and the driver only paid for 1 hour, but stayed longer. For this reason, the parking charge notice was generated by the ANPR camera system for insufficient payment. Parkingeye have also advised that the “PCN has gone to default so at this stage there is nothing we can do as the court have ruled in our favour”. Unfortunately, if this matter has gone to court, we would be unable to take any further action. 3. Have responded to the hospital parking team: Thank you for following this up. The court have not ruled in favour of PE - this is a misleading account of the situation from them to you. PE have made a county court claim which I plan to defend. PE will know this as they will have received my defence and have the option of not proceeding with the claim. I hope that your potential wish to cancel this charge will assist them in coming to such a resolution. Your latest email does confirm to me that that payment at this car park had to be made on arrival and there was no option to pay on exit, as is recommended by the government guidance. I would be grateful for your continued support with this. Best wishes,

Just received this from the hospital trust parking team: Dear Many thanks for your email and for explaining the circumstances at the time and please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in responding. It does appear that the parking charge dates back to the 26 July, so I have needed to contact Parkingeye as I am not sure at what stage the charge is now at. If the case has escalated to legal proceedings, I would be unable to cancel the charge at this stage.The charge was issued as it does appear to have been issued for insufficient payment. As the car parks at the Barnet hospital site are controlled by ANPR cameras, payment for parking is upon exit only as the machines calculate the payment required to cover the parking. Once I have received Parkingeyes response, I will contact you as to whether it was possible to cancel or reduce. I have responded: Dear Dee, Thank you so much for your response. The payment was not on exit (had it been so, it would have been possible to pay the correct amount rather than guess). The payment machine was used for the time believed to be appropriate. I am very grateful that you will try to cancel this charge, if you possibly can. I do hope that Parking Eye will take your request for that seriously and the attempt to pay the correct amount in good faith. I do hope it can be arranged for payment on exit from this carpark in future, as this situation is very stressful. Many thanks for your help Definitely worth knowing for future reference that appealing to the relevant hospital trust department is worthwhile (even if they don't know how each car park operates in their trust). Clearly, as already advised on here in post #21, PE won't cancel as at court stage but hopefully good for the defence that the hospital would consider cancelling or reducing the charge.

It has been filed. Huge thanks! Just sorting another donation to this site too!

Thanks - I can't see any red though!

Thanks. Here is what I propose to submit The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.It is denied that the defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land. 2.It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxx 3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract. 4. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 5. The Claimant is claiming legal representation fees when they are in fact representing themselves. 6.The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Hence it is denied that the defendant has any debt to settle with the claimant. 7. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. I cannot find the POC - where amongst all the paperwork should this be - so haven't personalised the above. Obvs will put in the reg no of the car. Is this sufficient or too templatey?

sorry not sure how to screenshot but this is a copy of the contents Please note that a defended claim will be transferred to an appropriate county court to proceed. Each step is completed by clicking 'Next' at the bottom of the page, which automatically confirms and saves the information you have entered. Any error messages displayed at the top of a page must be corrected before moving on to the next step. Before you can file a defence to the claim against you, you must make sure the following apply in your case: you are filing your defence within 14 days of service of the claim on you (a claim is considered served on the fifth day after it is issued) or where separate detailed particulars of claim were served, within 14 days of service of those or if you filed an acknowledgement of service, within 28 days of service of the claim (or separate particulars) You don't have to pay a fee to defend a claim. However, you will have to pay a fee if you decide to make a counterclaim against the claimant. If you file a defence electronically through MCOL, do not send a copy by post. If you experience any difficulties, contact the help desk: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0300 123 1057

Oh gosh this has been overlooked. I was awaiting all the paperwork from PE which didn't come till 6/12. The letter in the pack is dated 27/11 but sent to my partner's business address and then forwarded. I did think this had been changed on government gateway but after being told it had been, I then understood it hadn't been possible. Having said that, the staff there always post things promptly so I doubt it arrived there by 1/12. Is it too late too file a defence? Are we not entitled to get their documents before filing it?

Thanks. I am not sure what the next steps are or how I check PP requirements in relation to regulatory requirements mentioned in 14.10 as asked in post 44 I have looked at Cardiff Devil's thread - I can't see any reference to a grace period in the info I have been sent. Having said that the driver did pay for a ticket, it just didn't end up covering the entire period the car was in the carpark so I guess any grace period is irrelevant. Given the huge amount of redacted info should I approach the hospital to try get a copy of the contract? Still no response from them about cancelling the ticket - although I note that the contract at 11.3 states that after a cancellation after court proceedings issued can only be done by PE I'm hopeful that post no 11 in this thread that states the PCN doesn't comply with PoFA and the failure to mention a parking period will be sufficient to scupper this claim? Do others agree?

Hi, We have now received a pack of documents from Parking Eye. They state they contain a copy of the contract between PE and the hospital trust but as they are commercially sensitive and not largely relevant to the claim the doc is redacted. I attach a copy of their cover letter, dated 27/11/23, which states that the signs in the car park are sufficient so that "even if their presence was a purported planning breach" they would lead a motorist to conclude that parking was subject to certain conditions. In the pack are 39 pages of a service agreement dated 2013 and signed in 2014 and a further 10 pages dated 6/8/21 and signed 16/8/21 headed "Amendment No 7 Services Agreement". There have also enclosed copies of the various letters they sent to the registered keeper. I have not received any reply to the email I sent to the Royal Free trust parking people and have just resent it. 1_merged-1.pdf