Urgent help required please as County court claim received, Parking in GP surgery carpark totally unaware Options

[mij]

The registered keeper (RK) is hoping someone can please help me at this late stage as have received a genuine County Court Business Centre claim form from Nottingham
The problem began when the RK parked in a car park. It is a car park which the RK has frequented on many occasions over the last 15 plus years and never before was there any evidence of it being a private car park. On this occasion the RK parked while running over to the florists opposite to pick up some flowers for a colleagues leaving present. Whilst there the RK got into conversation with a staff member who discovered that the driver works as a clinically at the local hospital. She begun a very personal discussion about her relatives experience at the hospital. This happens a lot so the RK was more than happy to chat, offer advice, support and sympathy before returning to the car and driving home. To the RK's absolute shock and horror in the post arrived a PCN 6/7 days later. This requested a £60 penalty charge payment within 14 days or £100 if within 28 days. The next day the RK returned to the site and noted a sign above the entrance to the car park which stated "permit holders only see signs for terms and conditions private land. Site managed by ANPR and manual patrols by Civil Enforcement Ltd". The RK genuinely had not seen this upon entering and upon further investigation to park there it required inputting a car Reg at the GP surgery next door to it. The RK then went to the surgery and asked if they could help but was advised by a receptionist it was out of their hands. Clearly in hindsight it was a mistake having looked at advice online to ignore the series of letters from DRP and Zenith collection threatening court action and baliff attendance to seize goods that followed. Also received was a letter before action a without prejudice offer which reduced the claim which had spiralled to £170 down to £75. However the latest court claim form from Northampton County Court Business Centre has forced a response as the RK has to provide an Acknowledgement of service. This is where urgent help is needed. How should the RK respond and proceed. Pay or admit part fault or does the RK have any grounds to dispute the full amount. Ironically the RK returned t the same site today to take more photos of the signage in a bid to assist the case to discover the signage from the time of parking have been removed and the car park is now a controlled parking zone managed by euro parking services so unable to collect any further evidence. Please can anyone help at a total loss as to what to do next?

This post has been edited by mij: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 17:46

[Advertisement]

[mij]

Hi all ,
As a continuation of above -
I sent my defence and have now received a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims court.
It offers mediation.
Firstly, should I accept?
Is the small claims court the appropriate track?
What witness statement would help or would this not be beneficial.
I was really hoping it wouldn't come to this.
I am really nervous. Can anyone please help. I know it is a busy time for many but my Christmas wish is to finish this once and for all as it has been almost a year.
Kind regards

[nosferatu1001]

What defence did you send?

Have you read post 2 of the thread you were directed to? What does it unequivocally state about mediation? What instructions did you read abou the DQ?

Your hope or not is irrelevant. Im sorry, harsh reality is you can be sued at any time by anyone. Youve got a massive resource, and from the quesitons about you are NOT HELPING YOURSELF because you have not read the massively comprehensive guie at the newbies thread. IUt takes you through *every* stage of the process.

[mij]

Hi
As requested below is a copy of my defence statement

Defence Statement


1) The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, and denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:-

2) The signage was fair from prominent, and under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, extra signs would be needed to communicate any change in rules, so that people familiar with the car park would not be caught out, given that they cannot reasonably be expected to seek out possible 'new' terms that are not transparent and prominent. It is a car park which the Defendant has frequented on many occasions over the last 15 plus years and never before was there any evidence of it being a restricted 'permit holder' car park, issuing private penalties.

3) The facts are that, on this occasion the Defendant parked while running over to the florists opposite to pick up some flowers for a colleagues leaving present. There was no clear and obvious indication that the car park was for permit holders only, and even if there was a sign prohibiting other parking, then it is averred that this cannot constitute an offer or a genuine parking licence under a contract that had been breached. Although the terms were not there to be seen, due to sparse placement of the signage and minuscule font, any such sign offers a parking contract only to permit holders. At the most, the Defendant could only be pursued under the tort of trespass but this remains in the gift of a landowner only, not a parking firm not in possession, and no damage was occasioned. And in any case, this Claimant has not pleaded this case in tort, so there is no cause of action.

4) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the signs did not state the additional sum, and even if they did, it was hidden in small print n a sign that the Defendant could not be fairly said to have been 'bound to have seen'. This is in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list') paras 6, 10 and 14 and further, to attempt to recover the costs of the operation twice (once within the parking charge and then by adding them on top as well) is double recovery. This goes behind the findings about the construction of a parking charge as stated in paragraphs 98, 193 and 198 of the binding Supreme Court decision in ParkiingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which is fully distinguished

5) This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis (2015)UKSC67 (the Beavis case) which was dependant upon an undenied contract formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA code of practice was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this particular case as the Defendant saw no signs and was unaware they had entered into a contract.

6) The claimant is to put in strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the full permission of the site owner to display the signs.

7) In the absence of any proof then their cannot have been a contract therefore there is no case to answer. It is believed that Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim which should be in the name of the landowner.

8) The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

Statement of truth

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection

signed ---

Date---

I did and re read the newbies guide as suggested but with the masses of information I have waded through I find myself really overwhelmed I have only been able to look at each step at a time and now realise I should not accept mediation and witness statements come at a later point. I haven't approached anyone yet but would a statement from the florist I visited that day to ask her confirm my visit or the hairdressers I have visited for last 20 years be of any value as that would prove I would not have been looking or aware of signs as I had free to park there habitually for many years, or is it worth me speaking to the practice manager at the GP surgery to see if they could give me a statement saying they don't want to take things any further (though this is just me clutching at straws)

[nosferatu1001]

Why "defence statement", when not a single one of the 17 defences uses that phrase? It makes me worry you got an old one.

Yes I get there is masses of info, but thats the point really - its there, ready for you, to read in your own time. If you decide not to do so, then it doesnt help anyone

Any question you have on process - ANY - is covered by that thread. Check there first. If youre unsure, then please ask away, but its all there somewhere!

Get any WS you can to show regular customer, that there were no signs up to show it had changed from being open to all to permit (if thats the case, I dont know, you do) etc then that helps

Trying to get the GP to cancel would make sense, but youve done exactly what they presumably brought the company in to prevent!

[mij]

Thank you for responses. Update on situation I have completed my defence and had a hearing date allocated and waiting to see if CEL pay their fee and attend . I didn't go down the mediation route but COVID has since happened and I heard nothing more but now I have received an email from CEL offering a without prejudice save as to costs opportunity to settle in view of COVID of £60 which I should pay by tomorrow. Do you think I should do so? I am really at a loss.
Kind regards

[ostell]

So they know they won't get what they are asking for and trying to recover something

[mij]

It appears that way ostell. The deadline for me making the payment or contacting them has now passed so I hope I have made the right decision in choosing to ignore the request. They still have to complete payment and turn up and I'm hoping this won't happen and case will be struck. Anyone with any information re likliehood of doing this could they kindly advise.

As an addendum. The company are no longer managing this carpark. Could that have any bearing on my case?

[Jlc]

The company are no longer managing this carpark. Could that have any bearing on my case?

Not really - but given they may have lost the contract to monitor the site they may be more keen to get people to pay.

[mij]

August 4th they have to pay the fee so lets see. This has gone on and on for over 18 months. Hoping they won't attend can only hope.