Parking Eye PCN Claimform - Goodmayes Hospital, IIIford , Goodmayes Hospital, Barley Lane, Ilford , IG3 8XJ

[Reapstar]

Cheers Dave, just having a look now! 

I would have thought that they could just simply cancel their claim as it is invalid??

I have already read through this Dave?

I noted the following :

" I am not seeing all these threads you mentioned with the N180 replys, the very closes one I have found is the below but this has no N180 reply on it:"

I am in the same position, am I doing something wrong??

As it stands I think I am just waiting for a court issued N180, and then once I receive this I do the following :

no to mediation

1 wit you

the rest is obvious.

3 copies

1 to the court

1 to their sols (minus email/phone/sig) (in my case ParkingEye?)

1 for you records file

I believe I then wait until I have received the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings explaining that it has now been transferred to the county court for allocation. Then I am waiting for n157/allocation to be sent from the court?

[dx100uk]

add not suitable to papers only hearing as issues are complex and need oral examination.

 

[Nicky Boy]

Reapstar,

It can be a steep learning curve,  but you're getting there. The more you find out for yourself, the better. It "sticks" in the old brain cells better. 

It'll stand you in good stead if it ever actually gets to court. You'll be the one presenting your case...

Just keep reading.

I've learnt a hell of a lot just reading around this forum. 

[Reapstar]

Hey Dx, I don't understand what you are saying here "add not suitable to papers only hearing as issues are complex and need oral examination." ?? Please kindly explain, thank you.

Yes Nicky Boy, the process is definitely starting to become clearer, I think some people are quicker at picking it up than others, I have noticed though that many posters seem to suffer the same confusion whilst trying to navigate this site, the information needed is most certainly there, its just not easy to find.

I have already been to court once over one of these, with the help of the wonderful people here who share their valuable time helping people, hopefully it will result in a win again, I'm just tired of having to deal with these clowns. 

[Nicky Boy]

I believe there's a section asking if the case is suitable for a hearing on the papers only. Obviously you say no, 'cos the fleecers lie and twist things in their WS.

Then you explain why not suitable using DX's little spiel...

[Reapstar]

Oh ok, that makes sense now! Thanks Nicky  

Just received a beg letter offering to pay only £70 to forget about it.

Imagine someone owing you money then taking you to court for it because "it is owed" and "we are in the right", then they offer to reduce it massively if you cough up before it goes to court. 

This should be an insult to the court worthy of punishment, no?

Edited July 23, 2023 by Reapstar

[Nicky Boy]

They're not insulting anbody except you!

They think you're a scaredy-cat...

[Reapstar]

I found it hilarious rather than scary, it's just a waste of everyone's time, these people need locking up.

[lookinforinfo]

That is an amazing reduction. None of them usually offer below £200. Now that is an insult! 

£70 may be that they realise they may not win in Court so hoping a reduced amount will induce to pay up rather than going to court.

[Reapstar]

I think they have realised that they cannot win and are trying to recover their costs .

"We are now in receipt of new information and in an effort to bring this matter to a conclusion without further cost to either party" they will accept £70 to finish it lol. 

[dx100uk]

na.. one of a dozen or so std lines they rotate around and use in these threat-o-gram we are all powerful begging letters but we'll win in court twaddle letters

you'll see the same letter in 99% of PE claimform threads here already

dx

 

[FTMDave]

This will be due to the hospital intervening.  At work now.  More in a mo.

[Reapstar]

I have seen it before, I just find it amusing how they can go to the effort of telling the court that £185 is owed yet they are willing to settle for only £70 if im willing to not go to court. It's just laughable and annoying because it is wasting everyone's time. 

[FTMDave]

I may be doing a bit of 2+2=5 here, but from past experience I reckon this has happened.

The hospital has been pretty decent and has put pressure on PE.

Had that been done at the start they would have cancelled the invoice.

Now however that there is a court claim they will have squealed like a demented piglet that they have paid out "costs" and so "cannot" cancel it but will accept a much smaller amount.

Now £70.00 is better than £185.00.

But £0.00 is even better than £70.00.

Legally you owe £0.00 because they rely on signage to form a contract with the motorist, and there was no damn sign.

However, the big problem here is you moving abroad and your mum being the RK.  Is she up for learning a couple of quick legal arguments, especially the signage, and explaining them in court?  Because that is the alternative to accepting the fleecers' offer.

[Reapstar]

That sounds pretty reasonable, she is 70 years old and it will be a great burden and stress for her that she doesn't need, this is what angers me, they are attacking an elderly woman that is not in the position to be able to defend herself, these people are despicable.  

It was a genuine appointment, it wasn't someone attending site to engage in commerce. If I was just a random person using the parking for my own benefit then I would appreciate the action against her but as mentioned it was a genuine appointment that got delayed due to NHS issues. 

I feel sorry for people who are unaware of CAG and get emotionally bullied into coughing up, to me that is the same as robbing people on the street and he reason they get away with it all the time is because people end up agreeing to pay. 

There is no crime committed when person A agrees to pay person B's demands. If person A does not agree to pay and the money is taken by force then, that is considered robbery, but if handed over by agreement. No robbery. Same as Tax basically. That is why when street people rob other people on the street they call it "taxing" them. 

Why do I see like this and others see it as genuine legal above board business?

 

This is the response from the CEO :

 

Further to our correspondence below.  This has now been investigated by our internal Estates department and the car parking agents, Parking Eye.  I’m afraid to inform you that as the ticket dates to May 2022 it is now out of the Trust’s control and is being internally reviewed by Parking Eye.

 Normally Estates have the ability to cancel tickets for the Goodmayes site, however the PCN has now exceeded the point of reminders and would have gone to court or possible debt collectors. When Estates attempted to cancel, the response from the parking eye system was:-

 “Cancellation request has been aborted, a pending request for this case already exists”

 I realise this is not an ideal response, however I’m afraid from a NELFT’s perspective there is nothing more we can do to assist.  Please do contact Parking Eye to resolve this issue further.

 Again, I am sorry I cannot be of further assistance, and I wish you the best of luck in having this resolved satisfactorily.

As far as I am concerned this is a direct contravention to their statement

"Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)."

I wonder why they are ignoring their own mandate

[FTMDave]

You're right of course.

What is PE's deadline for you to accept the £70?

I'm thinking that you might as well use the time before the deadline to keep fighting with the CEO, you've got nothing to lose.

[Nicky Boy]

This is definitely along the lines of what Dave said earlier.

Having seen some contracts, there is usually a clause allowing cancellation by the client (in this case, the hospital), but only within a certain period , or before "recovery" commences. The reasoning? Because the fleecers start to "incur costs"... huh, yeah!

Agree with Dave, plug away with the CEO, again quoting the "Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)." from their own Government "mandate". (Good word, better word than "guidance").

If all else fails and, due to your personal circumstances, you really want this out of your hair, possibly offer the fleecers (via hospital CEO, so he's aware) to cover their actual costs of £35??

[Reapstar]

Thank you for the input guys, having to pay £35 for someone's greedy mistake is just as infuriating as having to pay £185.

I will reply to the CEO's office and reaffirm that their mandate is clear and that they are obliged by their own orders to waive any charges due to the delay being outside of the drivers control. 

I'm not sure if you have noticed but I may come across as a bit blunt sometimes  unintended of course, how does this sound :

Dear Sarah, 

Thank you for your reply.

I appreciate that the event occurred back in 2022 but your Agent has only just decided to proceed with action against me. 

This is clearly outside of my control and was based upon their own decision, they are aware of the rules they are obliged to follow, one of which clearly states the following :

"Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)."

As this is government mandate, not guidance, it should be relatively straightforward to cancel the invalid invoice in order for your Agent to avoid incurring any further unnecessary costs and any further undue alarm, distress and harm to me.

Please kindly note that under this particular circumstance as defined in the above mandate, your parking agent has a legal obligation to waive their erroneous and invalid charge.
 

I request that you kindly instruct your Agent to cancel their invoice without any further delay.

 

Kind regards, 

 

(it wont allow me to turn bold off on some txt?)

 

[FTMDave]

Wooops, I was just drafting a letter, but you beat me to it, more in a mo!

[Reapstar]

Dave, you are still  Legend!  haha thank you!

[Nicky Boy]

Alongside the fact that the fleecers have only just initiated legal action, it might be an idea to mention that you gave them the option to cancel the charge back on 03/08/2022.

(When you sent your "snotty letter").

[Reapstar]

Yes, this is very true, thank you Nicky!

How does my response sound? I'm sure DX will tell me off for something I have said lol :)

[FTMDave]

That is superb.  I've suggested some extra bits in red -

Dear Sarah, 

Thank you for your reply.

I appreciate that the event occurred back in 2022 but your Agent has only just decided to proceed with action against me.  I did not ignore their demands, I replied to their Letter of Claim on 3 August 2022 so they could have cancelled the charge then. 

Not only do Estates normally have the ability to cancel tickets for the Goodmayes site, you always have the ability.  Simply use a phone or a keyboard, contact Parking Eye and call them off.  You are the organ grinder.  They are your agents.  You are in charge.

The court action is clearly outside of my control and was based upon their own decision, they are aware of the rules they are obliged to follow, one of which clearly states the following :

"Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)."

As this is government mandate, not guidance, it should be relatively straightforward to cancel the invalid invoice in order for your Agent to avoid incurring any further unnecessary costs and any further undue alarm, distress and harm to me.

Please kindly note that under this particular circumstance as defined in the above mandate, your parking agent has a legal obligation to waive their erroneous and invalid charge.

Parking Eye are a member of the British Parking Association.  The BPA's Code of Practice is quite clear about the importance of signs, and especially entrance signs, point 19.2  https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf  I once again attach a photograph showing there is no entrance sign.  Parking Eye are out to entrap motorists and Estates are letting them get away with it.

Parking Eye have paid the £35 claim fee to start the vexatious court action. That is the limit of the extra costs they have incurred.

I request that you kindly instruct your Agent to cancel their invoice without any further delay.

 

Kind regards,

[Nicky Boy]

How about this modification for second to last para?

You may or may not be aware that Parking Eye have written to me offering to settle the outstanding PCN by payment of £70.

This is to say the least, disingenuous. Parking Eye have paid a £35 claim fee to start the vexatious court action. That is the limit of any extra costs they have incurred.

[FTMDave]

Excellent idea Nicky.