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

[Reapstar]

I will have a chat with her and see what she says. 

So far :

They have failed to produce upon request a contract with the landowner

They have no signage upon entry

They do not have the name of the driver.

That is three strong points just to start with, then there is the actual reason for them issuing the ticket, breaching the 30 minute max stay which is unreasonable for an able person let alone a disabled person who is attending an NHS appointment, even on a good day that leaves very little time to get from the car park, to sit and wait to be called and then have the appointment, then get back to the car and exit.

There's a lot going on there that both the parking company and the trust should be aware of if they care to follow the letter of the law. There is not just the one person being sent offers to pay at this location. We are likely to be one of many thousands. 

As mentioned by one Cagger previously, it is entrapment, which I believe is illegal in the UK? Is NELFT facilitating this crime?

The fact that NELFT are refusing to cooperate with their own mandate is deeply concerning. 

I don't want the headache of dealing with this but I will not allow my mum to be bullied and extorted.

would be more than happy to represent my mum remotely via video chat.

In my opinion I believe the defence she has is strong enough to defend against their vexatious claim.

However, I am in no way as experienced as you guys here are, so again, I will humbly await the opinion of the good people here

[FTMDave]

We're starting to go round in circles here.

The reason PE have offered such a huge reduction is because the hospital forced them to.

You've understood the legal points about why their case is pants very well - well done.

The reason they proceed with these farcical claims is because, unfortunately, the majority of motorists aren't like you, they wet themselves and give in.  "I've been fined!"  "It's unfair but I haven't got ten minutes' spare to look up the legal position so I'll just give in".  "it's only £60 after all".  "They could take me to court!"  "If I don't pay they will (insert imaginary inexistent threat) so best to tug my forelock".

You need to decide.  Is your mum up for arguing the legal points you've underlined in court and almost certainly win, or are you going to pay the £70?

[FTMDave]

5 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

Reapster could out himself as the driver (thus losing his POFA protection) and fight on with the other good points mentioned.

Too late.  The mother is the defendant and she will have to argue her case in court.  She can certainly point out that she was not the driver however.

A decision about whether to out the driver should have been taken when the invoice was issued.

5 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

The only issue then would be his extended time out of the country. I'm not sure whether the Courts would allow him to explain this during the process and push back the case for 6 months. (cant remember the document which holidays, etc are declared on).

The alternative could be a remote hearing on the phone, zoom, etc?

Again, all far too late.  The person who is being sued is the person who will have to appear in court.

5 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

In the meantime, it might be worth a go at contacting the fleecers offering to settle their true costs of £35?

I like this! 

As time is running out it would have to be done by e-mail, even though we normally say not to use e-mail.  The e-mail could be copied to the hospital too to embarrass them.  How about something short -

Dear Parking Eye,

Re: PCN no.XXXXX, claim form no.XXXXX

thank you for your offer to discontinue the case if I pay £70.00.

I consider that the PCN was unfairly issued and I owe you £0.00.  However, as you incurred the £35.00 claim fee when starting court proceedings, I am willing to pay £35.00 to settle this matter.

Yours, XXXXX

Edited July 27, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[Nicky Boy]

And as the fleecers made their offer  under a "without prejudice" clause...

Add something like:

If you insist on pursuing this through the courts, this letter will be brought to the attention of the Judge.

 

???

[FTMDave]

Good idea.

I've looked for an email address for the fleecers and there's nothing on their site as they want you to use their carpy web forms, however I've found  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=c-79139

 

[BazzaS]

20 minutes ago, Nicky Boy said:

And as the fleecers made their offer  under a "without prejudice" clause...

Add something like:

If you insist on pursuing this through the courts, this letter will be brought to the attention of the Judge.

 

???

If it says “without prejudice” or “without prejudice save as to costs” ; you can’t bring it to the judge’s attention with regard to whose favour the judgement gets made in, only after judgement (then regarding costs£

[Nicky Boy]

OP would only be bringing his own letter to the judge's attention.

Or, can you not even refer to the without prejudice letter from the other party?

 

ps just read the without prejudice hotlink and it doesn't really address this situation.

[Reapstar]

So what is the general consensus now given the situation? I was hoping DX would lend his thoughts??

Edited July 28, 2023 by Reapstar

[FTMDave]

You need to make a decision.

Are you going to accept the £70 (or similar) deal?

Or is your mum prepared to argue the toss in court?

[Reapstar]

Thank you Dave!

If I put in another SAR request will their £70 without prejudice offer be included in the information they are obliged by law to share with me?

I'm not into letting bullies bully people so I will be standing my ground  

It can be part of my evidence pack for the judge.

[FTMDave]

Yes, they will have to include everything in the SAR.

As you are standing your ground - you might as well go along with Nicky Boy's idea and e-mail the fleecers, copying to the hospital, suggesting the £35 agreement.  It will show them up to their bosses that, even when asked to reconsider the matter, they insist on demanding twice their real costs.

[Reapstar]

After consideration, I'm not sure if I agree with this, it is making me think that by offering to pay that I am guilty of something, and that it would lend them traction to their claim? but I am not guilty of any breach, there were no signs upon entry, that alone should be enough to evidence lack of contract? If I sent the email, how does it look for me when it goes to court? 

[Nicky Boy]

It looks to me like you've been very tolerant of their stupid demands and simply made the offer to avoid further action and costs to the fleecers.

You could say the same thing about the fleecers. Why have they dropped their demand from the original stupid £185 to £70?

Answer: Because they know they won't get £185... And anything's better than nowt!

 

Would you be prepared to pay £35?

[Reapstar]

  Hey Nicky, thank you for your reply,

I would rather pay £35 than go to court but at the same time I don't think I should pay anything... if they know they cannot claim the full amount - because their claim is obviously invalid, why do they think they can claim anything at all?

If I say no, I will see you in court, they have to pay more money to proceed and if they are aware they have no claim due to their strange offer of reduction, then why would they want to proceed, especially if I restate my original response which is they know I know they have no claim (from my original snotty letter) 

do you see what I mean?

[Nicky Boy]

You still haven't got it Reapstar!

They have no morals... or brains.

They are just bullies who get away with this all the time, because their victims just throw their hands in the air and give up.

That is what they're hoping to do here.

It's simply a war of attrition...

[Reapstar]

So I tell them to swivel then in another snotty letter?

[Nicky Boy]

Offer the £35.

I think Dave suggested one further up the thread... (post 204 or thereabouts?)

[honeybee13]

If you cost out your time dealing with a court case, is it more than £35?

HB

[FTMDave]

The civil court system encourages the parties to negotiate, so you're not admitting anything if you offer £35.

I think Nicky's idea was to (a) take the wee wee out of them and (b) show the organ grinder that they have doubled the amount of costs they really entailed.

But if you don't want to send the mail then don't.

[Reapstar]

Thank you for your message Dave.

I don't mind sending the mail, I just think that NELFT will fail to care or bat an eyelid because they had the opportunity to cure but decided not to. They will just let me pay for something I haven't done, PE will laugh and enjoy the money I sent contradictory to my initial snotty letter.

I don't want to give the fleecers a penny, I want them to pay me for wasting my time and the courts time. I also want them to abide by the law or be penalised like everyone else. 

Caving equals power to these dregs of society. 

[honeybee13]

You're not going to get money for wasted time, sorry.

HB

[Reapstar]

This is one thing that I fail to understand.

"Equality is paramount before law."

but not in my case.

[BazzaS]

Why not?

depends what you mean / expect  by “equality”

Lady Hale’s speech is available on the Supreme Court website:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-181029.pdf

Since your post is one line, and I don’t know if your expectations are reasonable / your understanding of “equality before the law” is correct, here’s an (oft cited) image to help.

http://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png?zoom=2&resize=730%2C547
 

expect equality. Expect some accomodation towards equity. Don’t expect full, unequivocal equity : especially in Small Claims Track (SCT)

(So, they can waste time / money on the case, can use hours of  a solicitor’s time, and can pay for that. You might not be able to pay for that. So, you might feel that is unequal.

But [equality] : neither of you can recover the full cost of hours of solicitors time in the SCT. Equality for those costs is provided by the costs limits for SCT that apply to both sides.
 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by BazzaS

[Reapstar]

I'm not sure if I understand that but to little old me, they are invoicing me for nothing, their claim is vexatious at best. Why can't I invoice them for my time and energy spent administering their false claim? I am spending my time and energy servicing their request which costs me.

For this there must be a fee, just like with any other person engaging in commerce. I do not work for free just as those making these vexatious and frivolous claims do not work for free, they are getting paid for every moment they spend engaging with me. It cannot be all in their favour, that is not fair or equal, unless someone can show me that I am mistaken?

My intention here is not to cause annoyance to anyone, I am just looking for a method of protecting myself and others from these demons who exist solely to be literal vampires. 

If they knew engaging with me would potentially cost them thousands of pounds in damages, then would they continue under their current business model that preys mostly on innocent people? 

They know what they are doing and so does everyone else, other than the victims of course. 

I know others here suggest that everything they do is above board which I may not agree with but is the general consensus here, so why can we not notice them that entering into contract with us comes with its own terms and conditions, they give us terms and conditions which we must abide by, so under equality before law, it would be reasonable and fair that we can have our own terms and conditions.

I would like for one of my terms and conditions to be that failure to follow legal procedure and raising false claims results in heavy fines that must be enforced by law. Just as their nonsense is enforced by law if we do not jump through their purpose placed hoops at the correct stage. 

Perhaps if people like Philip who owns PE got stung really hard, people like Philip would be forced to act morally instead. 

Bottom line, being charged for parking in a hospital whilst attending a hospital appointment. Should be a criminal offence to even think about giving someone a ticket for this. 

[BazzaS]

You can defend their speculative invoice. The court can decide not to enforce payment of their speculative invoice 

if you send them a speculative invoice for your time: they too can defend it, and the court can decide not to allow it, too.

Expect equality.