E.Kent Hospital PCN's sobell/white taking me to small claims court **Discontinued**

[peanutsallergy]

If you parked there to load/unload, how long was the car there each time, and do you have a record of the equipment you needed to load/unload if it was difficult to carry.

If those were from 2010/11, have you further tickets each month up to the present as you carry out your job, or have you a permit again?

Or have the hospital realised their mistake and provided the correct parking now?

[peanutsallergy]

Looks a lot to carry!

No problem proving you had a need to park by the entrance door to unload anyway.

And if all the tickets where issued within minutes of you stopping, some even before you had the chance to get an unloading sign up, it would be reasonable to argue you weren't even "parked", just unloading as required by your job and contract.

(You did move your car as soon as you could didn't you?)

[peanutsallergy]

Sobell recently lost a case for east Kent hospitals, unfortunately the defendants posts on MSE and youtube were obnoxious so were removed, but I seem to remember the judge agreed they were an unlawful penalty not a recovery of a loss!

 

Must still be a thread you can link to, or do you mean the MSE posters were obnoxious and the thread was removed?

[peanutsallergy]

If that's what happens on MSE if you claim to have won, god help us.

It's a schoolyard.

[peanutsallergy]

I'm just going off what I read today here, but it seems to be the general quality though.

None of those responses are a one off sadly.

I've said it used to be good in the past, but read that thread alone and you'll see what I mean today. It's not a good image.

[peanutsallergy]

The responses are offensive. They're the ones I can see now.

 

I notice the op has posted up on Pepipoo, and is getting advice from the same name on there, so I guess it's the same poster. He is also very quick to decry the other poster on MSE.

Also, from a convoluted logic, as I also see a new thread slagging off CPS, as they claim to have won a case against a MSE poster, the language must be affecting their credibility, as it's even mentioned by the judge in the transcript on CPS's web site.

 

I hope the op has a good read of the defence, and takes out any comments if they stray into it.

Hopefully there won't be any.

Still needs reigning in on there though.

[peanutsallergy]

I said/meant the op in this thread needs to be aware the poster they are getting advice from on Pepipoo, was one of the main players in the MSE thread you linked to.

So the op needs to be aware of that, and be aware of the need to look for "colourful" language seeping into any court submission, as the judge in the CPS case pointed out to the MSE member in the transcript on the CPS website.

And to be honest, who cares if Mike Perkins posts up on MSE. Everyone knows what he does. The quality of the responses say a lot more than anything he ever could.

 

Hopefully that explains what I mean, if it does, I'll leave it there, as I don't want this thread going off track, especially as it's a court case for the op.

[peanutsallergy]

Have you checked the parking signs as hospitals were known for calling the tickets "penalty enforcement charges", a big no no i believe. If they don't refer to penalty now they may well have done when you recieved the tickets. I would be checking that out.

 

Good point, also in the contract that was probably signed by you when you had the permit in the first place, if you still have it.

[peanutsallergy]

And the other law firm used by Aintree Hospitals lose big style, and cost the NHS trust a fortune. You might care to read:

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t67017.html

 

What's the "MacDonald vs Aintree" case mentioned in post 23?

[peanutsallergy]

There is no trespass claimed, so that would be thrown out.

 

If you read the claim form though, they initially claim breach of contract, then claim contract.

 

The other point to address is how much is claimed.

 

From the op's link, the PCN should be £30, after an initial period of £15.

How does it become £778 for 9 pcn's?

The signage at the carpark is probably key here.

[peanutsallergy]

Hello friend !!! The matter relates to private land not public highway therefore any bays such as hot parking or disabled bays are as good as graffiti. It is done on the assumption that everyone will adhere to their terms and conditions. Same applies in supermarkets etc

 

Although it says on the letters your old employers are taking you to court, its actually roxburghe. If you get a letter from the illusive sobell I would ask for a full break down of costs and what percentage East Kent Hospitals get if the case was ever successful.

 

I would also request a full close up photograph of the dash board clearly that shows the correct permit was not on show. In the absence of this, there is a question of liability.

 

Also the charge is a penalty for non payment and disproportionate to any loss the Hospital Incurred and therefore unrecoverable in law........................ Heatherington Jakeman 2008 mansfield county court

 

Admitting you won't adhere to their terms and conditions admits you accept they offered a contract, your choice in that case should have been not to use the parking facility.

No one forced the op to park, it was quite clear what the t&c's were at the time the permit was purchased.

The charge isn't a penalty for none payment, the op paid, and at least part of the charge is clearly defined in the link the op posted.

It's a penalty for parking where they shouldn't have.

 

That fact needs to be addressed to fight the charges.

 

It's not worth the op trying to claim they had a permit, as they admitted they haven't, they would have to lie in court, and their employment records would clearly show they hadn't at the time.

[peanutsallergy]

Which bits, and I'll be happy to try to explain more.

[peanutsallergy]

Just helping that particular lady....... not interested in anyone else or their comments

 

So if you're not interested, it's only fair to point out to the op the "demand for proof" that no ticket was on display is nearly worthless, as on the balance of probabilities, if one hadn't been issued to the op, it's unlikely one would be on display, so not really a lot of need for a photograph if the employer states that, and the op has already admitted it?

Or that a contract exists, so the original charge will not be argued as a penalty by the PPC, and indeed isn't in the claim they've made.

 

This isn't MSE, and if you read my earlier comments, you can make your own opinion of me.

I have no idea what was on the papers you received, or if you were an employee or a member of the public, but a copy of the transcript would be helpful to the op in this case.

[peanutsallergy]

.... They have to totally prove their case....

 

No, that's criminal court. Civil is always "balance of probabilities"

 

And no one else would say they always lose. They should, but they don't always.

 

The op needs the truth, even if it's not what we want to hear.

Then they'll be properly prepared.

[peanutsallergy]

Result!!!!!

 

"Had a letter today from Sobell dated 23rd April stating "discontinuance" which seems to be legal talk for "get you next time". "

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77364&pid=812277&st=0entry812277

[peanutsallergy]

This was a non starter all the way through.

 

Ticketing an employee for unloading!