Parking Eye ANPR PCN Claimform - Barnet hospital EN5 3DJ

[FTMDave]

Just to check one thing first - who is actually receiving the letters from PE?

[ajjm]

My partner Perhaps I should say my partner was attending the hospital etc and now the registered keeper has received the ticket etc?

Edited November 9, 2023 by ajjm

[FTMDave]

Yes, that was what I was thinking.  Work calls now but I'll scribble this evening.  I'm sure the other regulars will comment.

[Nicky Boy]

I've made a few suggestions in your post.

See what the others think later on.

[FTMDave]

Firstly, there is no reason to be secretive about your partner's identity.  His name is on the PCN as registered keeper so that info is known to PE.  You will need to attach the PCN so the hospital will know what to cancel (hopefully!)

I also think the mail should come from your partner.  Sure, use your e-mail address if you want, but the mail should be from him, in the first person.  This is because PE certainly, and the hospital possibly, would use "on behalf of" as an excuse to not cooperate.

But never identify the driver.  Don't say "I parked" but "the driver parked".  "The driver is a busy medical professional" not "I am a busy medical professional".

Don't mention anything about the LBA or it being at the court stage, we don't want to give them excuses to not cooperate.

Get the mail off tomorrow and let's see how PALS respond.

[ajjm]

Hi 

I have sent off the email to PALS with the recommended changes and attached a copy of the ticket and proof of the payment for the car park. Will update when I get a reply or any other communication about this matter.

Thanks all

[ajjm]

UPDATE for future CAG reference - PALS replied that they can't help with parking so have resent email to this address as suggested by PALS:

[email protected]

 

 

[FTMDave]

Good luck!

[ajjm]

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

[FTMDave]

OK.  But it's going to take a little while to read through all these documents and put them together, when a lot of us on the forum are working.  Be patient.  But we'll get there!

[Nicky Boy]

All documents merged (1 rotated)

1_merged-1.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

Well, after a scan through, I don't think the contract is acceptable with such a large amount of redaction.

Also bear in mind that there are a number of pages not even uploaded by ajjm, due to being totally redacted!

[FTMDave]

Just battling through this War & Peace of bilge now.

[FTMDave]

First thoughts.  3.5.2 is vague but talks about permission.  Well I very much doubt that they have planning permission from the local council for their signs.  Similarly 14.10 mentions "regulatory requirements".  Have you checked this about PP?

A thought.  In Cardiff Devil's case PE have deliberately redacted bits of the contract because they know it would scupper their case and show they had no right to issue the invoice.  If Cardiff Devil's case gets resolved before yours, you could quote it and question why PE have redacted so much and indeed left out two whole pages.

EDIT - left out six whole pages.

Edited December 8, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[ajjm]

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?

[Nicky Boy]

ALERT!!

Just reading the thread again...

In Post 4... Date to submit Defence - 1 Dec 2023

Has the defence been submitted?

(Can't see any mention of it on the thread)

 

[ajjm]

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?

[Nicky Boy]

What does MCOL say?

Screenshot and upload here...

 

 

[ajjm]

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

...........................................

 

Do PEs documents count as separate detailed particulars of claim?

It does seem possible to be able to go on to the next page to fill in the defence so presumably if the system works, it's not too late?

Not sure what we should be putting in the defence tho!

[Nicky Boy]

Scroll down in the sticky you filled in earlier...

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/#comment-4706918

Q2) How should I defend?

post up here what you are going to submit first...

[ajjm]

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

 

Is it too early to put in anything re parking period (as opposed to payment period) and lack of compliance of PCN as per post 11?

[Nicky Boy]

I've added a couple of things above in red.

Tagging @FTMDave for a quick scan over.

No, don't give them any further clues as in your last post.

[FTMDave]

I've kept the exact same content, just moved a bit around.

Get that filed immediately and keep fingers & toes crossed that PE haven't entered judgment yet.

Well, well spotted by Nick!

 

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.  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.

4.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.

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

6.  The Claimant is claiming legal representation fees when they are in fact representing themselves.

7. 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.

[ajjm]

Thanks - I can't see any red though!

[FTMDave]

The red has now changed to black!  Points 5 & 6.