Parking Eye ANPR PCN Claimform - Barnet hospital EN5 3DJ

[FTMDave]

Don't worry, the court deadline isn't imminent.

[dx100uk]

that letterssays nowt about YOU having to do anything with it.

good you've checked MCOL. 

yours is on the way.

i just cant understand why every time at every step you get SOOO confused..it's not like you've not had several claims already...

but you could prepare by:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5088148

3 copies

no to mediation 

1 wit you

Suitability for determination without a hearing? no (that the issues are so complex they need to be argued orally')

the rest is obv

1 to the court

1 to their sols (omit phone/sig/email) if no sols send to claimant

1 for your file

 

dx

 

[ajjm]

Sorry if I’m misunderstanding,

but page 1 of the letter in my post #74 reads to me as needing to be responded to by both parties by 5/2/24.

I can’t see anywhere that this is just a copy of what was sent to the claimant and only applies to them.

This is cause of my confusion.

It states at the top of the letter that if this isn’t complied with the court can strike out the claim or enter a judgment.

My reading of the link sent above is that C1 needs to be completed to say it’s not suitable for small claims track and it all needs to be filed with the court by 5/2/24.

With the upcoming holiday that means completing it this week. 

[honeybee13]

I'm a bit confused too because I thought both parties completed an N180. The form you received the other day has the same date as MCOL says the form was sent out.

While we're waiting for clarification, why do you think it's not suitable for the small claims track please?

HB

 

[AndyOrch]

Its to both parties and both must comply file and serve by said date.. If the court has not attached a blank DQ for you to complete we have copies here in the Library to complete and submit.

 

[ajjm]

Thanks. Sorry I mistyped in post #78 and meant to say "no" to mediation and "yes" to small claims track.

I am just unsure about suitability for determination without a hearing and if we say no which reasons to state.

Other than that, all is clear and complete. 

AJJM

[dx100uk]

read all the post in that n180 thread...

dx

 

[ajjm]

I have read everything that I could see on there and, maybe it's me, but I am unsure what to put here.

I think we should answer  "No"  but do I just say that there are factual disputes, without listing them at this stage?

I'm sorry but we really don't want to mess up at this stage. Maybe this is not the point at which to list them but if we do need to list them, this is what we  have so far :

1. There was clearly no intention not to pay for parking as the driver paid an amount that they thought would more than cover the time period required.

2. The PCN does not comply with PoFA as they did not ask that the keeper paid the charge Schedule 4 S9 [2]  [e] and there is no mention of the parking period - just an arrival and departure time. This is not the same thing as the elderly patient had to be collected from the A&E entrance and this all took time. I submit that the keeper cannot be pursued for the amount allegedly outstanding - only the driver is now liable and anyone with a valid motor insurance policy can drive that car. Courts accept that the keeper and driver are not necessarily the same person. I took this from post #11 so  please confirm that this is all correct?

2. Having checked the hospital website, after getting the claim forms, it stated that extra time could be purchased after departing the carpark. This is not mentioned on any signage in the carpark. It is possible that this was not an available option on the relevant date and that it has been included more recently, in response to the government guidance.

3. I contacted the helpful people at the Royal Free hospital parking team and they said they couldn't intervene as PE told them that judgement had been entered against me and I quote 

Parkingeye have also advised that the “PCN has gone to default so at this stage there is nothing we can do as the court have ruled in our favour”.  Unfortunately, if this matter has gone to court, we would be unable to take any further action.

 This was blatantly untrue information by PE and I submit they were trying to stop the hospital from helping out.

3. The signs which offer paybyphone also offer pay on exit, but this is in very small type and the signs are high up.

4. Sign type 4a (in PE docs) that states "additional car parking time can be added at any time" do not appear to be on display in the car park. I visited the carpark myself in Jan 24 following the receipt of these documents and I could see no signs of this nature in the carpark, despite looking thoroughly. If they were not obvious on a visit specifically to confrim the signage, they wouldn't be obvious to someone in a rush to see their elderly mother in hospital.

              

[Nicky Boy]

The issues are complex and need to be argued orally.

[dx100uk]

i've made it red for you now

goto post 3 here

 

[lookinforinfo]

I take it from your original post that you were not the driver but you are the keeper?

if that is the case then you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Act so only the driver is liable to pay the debt and the keeper cannot be pursued. 

[ajjm]

Thanks. I understand that I need to include that there are factual disputes and also it is complex as advised above and in the N180 DQ advise thread. However, the box for information about the nature of the factual disputes is quite small. I'm looking for pointers as to how much detail I should include here.

In answer to post #86 my partner is actually the keeper but the driver's name has not been disclosed.

One more update is that I received another email from the hospital parking people yesterday and I quote:

 I regret to advise that Parkingeye have refused to cancel the parking charge notice due to the stage that it was at (it had increased to £205).   They have advised that as a good will gesture they have reduced the charge to £70 and have sent a letter confirming this.  

I am sorry that I was unable to assist further

So PE have now changed their answer from telling the hospital that the judgement had gone to default and the court ruled in their favour to "the stage it was at". I think this is more evidence of them bending the truth and I will reply to the hospital to that effect. I think it's good that the hospital clearly wanted to cancel this ridiculous charge.

[Nicky Boy]

4 minutes ago, ajjm said:

However, the box for information about the nature of the factual disputes is quite small. I'm looking for pointers as to how much detail I should include here.

Leave them blank.

7 minutes ago, ajjm said:

One more update is that I received another email from the hospital parking people yesterday and I quote:

 I regret to advise that Parkingeye have refused to cancel the parking charge notice due to the stage that it was at

 I think it's good that the hospital clearly wanted to cancel this ridiculous charge.

Good stuff for your witness statement. PE refusing to comply with a request from the land owner...

[ajjm]

Thank you Nicky Boy for clarifying that I don't need to include the factual disputes. This was what I was, perhaps rather clumsily, asking for info on before - I had read the threads advised.

I have now replied to the hospital parking people:

Dear Dee,

 

Once again I would like to thank you for your efforts trying to help with this. It is just a pity that Parking Eye are so economical with the truth. 

 

In your email of 21 Dec, you informed me that they had told you the following :

 

Parkingeye have also advised that the “PCN has gone to default so at this stage there is nothing we can do as the court have ruled in our favour”.  Unfortunately, if this matter has gone to court, we would be unable to take any further action.

 

This was a blatant untruth which they clearly now admit, given what they are telling you. PE could stop this ridiculous court action right now, should they wish to. They just increase their charges willy nilly. To charge £70 as a "goodwill gesture" is laughable.

 

I will be fighting this in court, if it comes to it, as they have not complied with all the legal requirements,  but I do hope that you and your team will look in to the sharp practices of this company that runs your parking system.

Thanks again for your help

 

 

 

Edited January 24 by ajjm

[ajjm]

I have now posted copies of the N180 DQ to PE and the court and have a proof of posting certificate.

[FTMDave]