Parking eye ANPR PCN now Letter Of Claim - 175 Medical Centre Patients Brighton BN1 6AG

[BMX bandit]

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."

[FTMDave]

What an utter disgrace they are.  I can understand that someone who abuses an NHS car park for free parking while they sightsee around Brighton deserves their comeuppance, but here we have a person who was vulnerable that day using an NHS car park ... er, to use the NHS.

 

I suggest that in your snotty letter that as well as threatening PE with a hammering in court, that you include a bit about adding the surgery as a third party and giving them a thrashing too - and then copy the snotty letter to the surgery.  See if the threat of legal action focuses their minds.

[BMX bandit]

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?

[dx100uk]

thats a defence for a court claim not a snotty letter.

 

you ignore their reply pack totally.

 

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

I think we need to change from the usual snotty letter and go for something which shows PE you are no mug and also puts pressure on the surgery.  It may well be that no-one has stood up to PE there and the surgery have not had the reality of court action hitting them yet.  How about -

 

 

Dear Parking Eye,

 

Re: PCN no. XXXXX, Letter Before County Court Claim

 

cheers for your LBC.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up.

 

I was an NHS patient that day and I can prove it.

 

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at 175 Preston Road is complete pants.

 

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is up to you.  If you continue I will of course add The Surgery Brighton* as a third party to the claim and then enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against both of you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign holiday now that borders are reopening while all the time having a great laugh at your expense.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO THE SURGERY BRIGHTON*

 

 

*  You obviously know the real name of the place, correct this bit.

 

There's no rush, let's see what the other regulars think.

Edited January 18, 2022 by FTMDave
Spacing

[BMX bandit]

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

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by dx100uk
spacing

[BMX bandit]

Having thought about the response to the LBC, I think the draft as kindly offered by FTM Dave is pithy and direct enough to send the message without need for any further embellishment, As I mentioned I plan to post it next week so just ask a few points of guidance please

 

-Do I add a name and address of the sender at the top of the letter?

-Do I need to add 'Without prejudice' ???

-If adding details of sender, Should the letter be from myself as the owner or or my wife as the driver and patient- this may change the text of who was the legitimate NHS patient but I don't think that's an issue is it ?

-Should it be signed ?

 

Thanks in advance

[dx100uk]

Yes - the registered keeper

 

no

 

Type name only

 

A  person in the car was an nhs patient...

 

[BMX bandit]

Thanks for the advice, so now the full proposed response below, Just one question on the phrasing of who was using the car- Are any of the 2 suggestions below OK or do you have a better 

 

SENDERS ADDRESS

TOWN

POSTCODE

 

Dear Parking Eye,

 

Re: PCN no. xxxxxx Letter Before County Court Claim

 

Many thanks for your LBC.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up.

 

A person in the vehicle was an NHS patient that day and I can prove it.

Or

The car was being used by someone who was an NHS patient on that day and I can prove it

 

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at 175 Preston Road is complete pants.

 

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is yours.  If you continue I will of course add xxxxxxx Medical Centre as a third party to the claim and then enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against both of you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign holiday now that borders are reopening while all the time having a great laugh at your expense.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

 MY NAME

 

COPIED TO xxxxxxxxx MEDICAL CENTRE

[dx100uk]

as i said 

the 1st and you dont need to prove it.

dont make threats or play your cards early.

[BMX bandit]

So I sent the snotty letter as agreed and have received the attached in response, It says they want payment in 14 days to prevent further action- I'm assuming the advice is to ignore this deadline and not to respond?

2022-02-10 Parking eye response to snotty letter.pdf

[dx100uk]

Correct..

they cant do anything esp court only their client can initiate that.

So more scary dcbl letters to come poss with crayons