Thanks ever so much for your replies folks, I see I had jumped a step in the process during my research of old posts. I see the approach is to ridicule their spurious claims and I am sure we cam embellish this further.

I did point out in the letter sent to the surgery that they would be dragged into any further proceeding so the idea of further implicating them and copying them in may well create an uncomfortable situation for them.

I plan to send it by post on  the week of 7th Feb so we have time to finesse.

Thanks again

My thoughts exactly and yes that's exactly the point that niggled me and would have hoped they would show some common sense and leniency in a case such as this. Using a parking facility for an NHS service to attend an NHS service adjacent to it ?? We did mention in the letter to the surgery that we would be involving them if any further action was taken,!

So in terms of snotty letter, I have trawled the site and see a common theme in regard to the 5 or 6 key points that ned to be covered, I will top and tail it in due course but is the below what you are referring to in terms of the main body of the letter and does the first para apply in this case?

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.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

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.

Accompanying the letter was a reply form with tick boxes, I agree to the debt, some of the debt or I dispute the debt and then sections on how you will pay and if you need debt advice. Do I ignore these or send it back with the box marked I dispute the debt ticked?

HI Dave, Well remembered and appreciate the follow up, their reply is below :, Received last July:

"I am sorry that receiving the ticket caused an upsetting and distressful situation.

We introduced parking control in 2014 due to the number of people using our car park who are not our patients making it very difficult for our own patients to park. We provide parking for our patients not for people accessing NHS services at 177.

There are notices as you enter and leave the car park stating parking is for ‘Patients of 175 Only’ and we have tried to ensure there is sufficient and clear signage to inform car park uses that this is a controlled car park. We have also worked very closely with our colleagues at 177  to ensure patients accessing services are made fully aware that there is no parking at 175 so that should have been in the letter sent to you for your appointment and they did and should still have notices up to remind patients that there is no parking at 175.  In order to access next door you have to leave our entrance and walk along the pavement and then enter 177 ; there is no link to next door from our car park directly  which would indicate we are completely separate from them and not sharing any connection..

Unfortunately we are not able to cancel tickets for people using our car park for any services at 177 or for any purposes as the clear agreement we have with Parking Eye for us to cancel a ticket is that we have to provide proof that you were at 175 for a legitimate purpose and you obviously were not using services at 175.

So I am very sorry but we are not able to cancel your ticket."

Appreciate your quick response DX - can you point me in the direction of some of the more relevant letters you mention

Thanks in advance

After 6 months of no communication, these guys have come out with the big one, I think from all I've read that now is the time to take action given the attached letter. 

They also sent an information sheet and reply form which I haven't attached, I can do if required but I assumed these are standard forms you will have seen before?

Look forward to your advice

2022-01-11 PE LBC.pdf

And so it goes on, A final notice- If only- Not an LOC

2022-01-10 DCBL DCA.pdf

Damm, Apologies, and thanks for catching that !!!!!!! Thats a very accurate emoji

I got the address but not the name

Try again- 3rd time lucky2021-12-10 DCBL DCA.pdf2021-12-10 DCBL DCA.pdf2021-12-10 DCBL DCA.pdf2021-12-10 DCBL DCA.pdf2021-12-10 DCBL DCA.pdf2021-12-10 DCBL DCA.pdf

Further correspondence on this matter, 2 letters from DCBL who say they have been instructed to collect the charge. So its gone from OPS to QDR to ZZPS, back to OPS and now to DCBL?? Are they just letterheads spat out from the same printer and overall company ? 

2021-11-19 DCBL DCA.pdf

HI FTM Dave,

Thanks for your comment and scrutiny, Yes only 1 ticket in question

- I parked on double yellows or a bus stop if I ever need to go to the bike shop again

- So much for trying to do the right thing as I did on the occasion that led to this issue

- the PCN number on both letters is the same and consistent with all other correspondence,

The date on the earliest letter-  14th was the date of the event and the 22nd is the date they sent the original NTK

Hello folks,

Its been a while since any comms on this topic and I was wondering if we might have seen the last of it but maybe they just had the summer off or had been struck down by Covid ?

 I attach 2 files showing what appear to be the same ‘Final Demand’ letter, I posted about receipt of the first one back in May but didn’t attach a copy of the letter.

See the other file which as I said ,looks to be the exact same letter but 6 months after the first, They got the issue date wrong on the first letter and seem to have changed that on this latest letter.

I know the advice is still not to react in any way but is this normal that after already sending the original letter and then following up with multiple ZZPS and QDR letters and escalating costs claims that they circle back around to the beginning of the process?? Has this approach been seen before

Thanks in advance and keep up the good work

2021-05-24 OPS Final Demand.pdf 2021-10-28 OPS Final Demand.pdf

Thanks again for the input guys, Another follow up letter from QDR attached

2021-08-03 QDR Demand.pdf

Hello all, So QDR have written and the outstanding balance continues to increase !!!!

Been on holiday so only just opened it and it looks like the 14 days I had to make payment ends today- Letter attached

2021-07-19 QDR Demand.pdf

Good point re GDPR, if they are play by the rules- We'll e mail it over and see what happens

Have mentioned the point about their misleading website

Thanks as always for your collective inputs

Thanks for your reply

I thought the collective view was that it would be the surgery that has contracted PE to manage their car park facilities?

On the surgery website, it does say they will help to cancel 'fines' as they describe them if the user had a legitimate appointment in 'their' facilties and not the other NHS clinic next door

FTM Dave advised writing to the surgery for assistance in cancelling the charge to avoid further protraction/ court etc.

When I phoned and spoke to presumably a receptionist who also referred it to a manager, they advised as you indicate that it's nothing to do with them if we weren't using their surgery

I guess there is no harm in trying to appeal to their better nature with a letter but my concern was that if they were not willing to be helpful that by adding my wifes name could give them the driver info which could be passed to PE which I understood could be a bad thing?

FTM Dave et al. Letter drafted to the surgery manager, just about to push send and wondered if my wife sending it by e mail would disclose her name and therefore the driver details?

Could they pass this to PE who could use it against us??

Is it better to send the letter by mail anonymously ?  

Difficult to get any feedback if we go this route.

Latest chase letter received-  attached for the record

2021-06-18 PE Chasing.pdf

Hi All, Thanks for the housekeeping of the thread. latest missive from ZZPS on behalf of OPS, indicating they will pass to QDR solicitors if the increased cost of £170 is not settled. All standard stuff I assume and the advice is still to do nothing.

2021-06-25 ZZPS.pdf

It can't hurt to send the letter as you suggest, We will give it a go

Also, see attached what I can only assume is a reminder for the original charge, wording is pretty similar although tis dated on the 23rd, received on the 25th and only discounted if paid by today 28th ?

PE REminder.pdf

Hi All,,

Just for completeness I noticed when driving past this car park the other day some additional signs at the entrance- attached for your review, -

A banner above the entrance and a just park sign some way off to the left of the entrance  

Don't think it changes much and as previously stated no planning permission could be located for any signs or cameras

Vantage point entrance Brighton.pdf

Photos of 175 & 177 as requested in the attached files,

At 175 the entrance sign simply says its a private car park, Only a few warning signs high up dotted around  with writing so small you couldn't possibly read it. helpfully the 3rd photo shows a sign which could only be read on the way out. You can see the cameras centrally on the main building shot.

177 has no public parking so it seems, only staff but you can access it from the 175 car park and as said before they are both NHS facilities ??

175 preston rd Brighton Parking eye Photos-converted.pdf 177 preston rd Photos-converted.pdf

Called the surgery this morning, Extremely unhelpful, can't get involved because its manged by a private company and there was no appointment with them. Surely its all NHS so what does it matter, They smugly advised that the car had been parked in the wrong place and that we should take it up with the parking company.

I checked on planning permission and Parking Eye applied for cameras and signage in 2016

Thanks for your feedback, the wrinkle is that my wife was attending the clinic next door to this surgery- Number 177 and they say its their car park and they are number 175, as it mentions they will only provide evidence in support of an appeal to have the claim nullified by Parking Eye, If she was legitimately using the car park to use their surgery.

She parked there inadvertently, it may have been stated on various signs whose car park it was but it was her first visit and she was in an emotional state. Is it worth contacting them to see if they will support in this exceptional case or fight it out with Parking Eye as you advise on other claims?

Heres the summary data completed below, PCN issued 4 days after the event, Doesn't explicitly say what they charge is for but it is implied I guess on the back page, (2nd scan on my first post) that by not buying a tickwet etc that the charge is payable

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

Please answer the following questions.

1 Date of the infringement 10/06/21
 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 14/06/21

3 Date received 17/06/21
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] YES

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? CAMERA SHOTS OF ARRIVAL AND LEAVING
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] NO

7 Who is the PARKING company? PARKING EYE

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] 175 medical centre paitients,, BRIGHTON, BN1 6AG
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.  POPLA

Hi Guys

Another parking ticket,

this time my wife who went for a sensitive medical appointment and naturally parked in what she thought was the clinic car park, Turns out the medical centre referred to the Doctors surgery next door to the clinic she was visiting. Innocent mistake esp under emotional circumstances.

PCN attached from Parking eye.

I note it says charges are not applicable if you book in at the doctors surgery which clearly she didn't do as she was at the clinic next door, their website reads as follows:

Parking at Stanford Medical Centre 

.

The car park at 175 Preston road has a camera controlled car park management system 

To use the car park you MUST enter your registration number into one of the screens at the reception desks or on the ground floor.

For more information click here

.

.

If you have come to the surgery for an appointment and forgotten to put in your registration you will have received a fine.

You must appeal that fine and when Parking Eye ask you for proof we can provide you with evidence that you were here at the surgery. You can then attach this to their online form which is available here or you can send this with your appeal in the post.

.

Please note if you were not here for an appointment or not one of our patients we cannot provide any evidence for you. Please do not use the car park for the services at 177 Preston Road or for Preston Road.

So it seems if she had gone to the Doctors surgery and forgotten to log in then they would defend her claim but not for visiting another medical establishment next door !!!!

What are your collective thoughts- I could fill in the std questionnaire if needed and obtain photos of signs and check planning etc.

ParkingEyePCN.pdf

Hello All, I did wonder if I'd seen the last of this claim but not to disappoint, the saga continues with seeming escalation to a debt recovery company ZZPS- Letter attached, As it does not state a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action. Do I assume the advice is to continue to ignore it ?

Thanks in advance as always

Not that we are serial non paying parkers, but my wife has received another parking ticket from a doctors surgery which she took to be the car park for the clinic she was visiting next door to it, I'll post this on another thread

2021-06-14 ZZPS.pdf

Appreciate your quick review and feedback, Yes the entrance sign is the last one in the file.  it does indeed appear that there is a disparity with the pay point signs and others.

Totally agree that  the suggestion that users should consult the internet before complying is an unreasonable expectation.

Do these facts as well as the font size all go towards building sufficient defence and therefore rejection of the claimed charge?

Thanks in advance