Help with First Parking Claim please!

[CubeKramer]

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 2/10/2024
Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: Yes
Total Amount Claimed : £260
Claimant’s Name: First Parking
Solicitors Firm: DCB Legal

Particulars of Claim:
parking charge for driver of vehicle for breach of terms on the signs . reason : parked while not displaying a valid scratch card £170 pcn plus 8 % interest and costs
List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR ): None
Any Other Information or Background Details:

This would be the defence - not sure if i have a leg to stand on?

On the date in question the defendant arrived at the hospital at 8 am and parked in the same parking space in the overspill unmarked carpark as the defendant has done for the past 15 years.
There is no clear signage in this carpark.
The defendant possesses a valid permit, but as the defendant is not a full time member of staff the defendant has to pay for daily scratch cards (a practice which is discriminatory against predominantly female part time members of staff).
The defendant had no scratch cards and could not buy one as the cashier’s office is only open between the hours of 1000 hrs-1230 hrs and 1400 hrs-1600 hrs.
The defendant is a busy hospital doctor and had to chair the gastrointestinal multidisciplinary team meeting and perform multiple liver biopsies for patients with metastatic cancer that morning. At the first free opportunity coinciding with the sparse cashiers opening hours the defendant went to the cashier’s office to buy a valid scratch card and put it in the car window.
A parking charge notice was attached to the car windscreen. However in effect no breach of contract occurred and the £2.50 parking fee for that day was paid.
This practice is clearly in breach of the published government guidelines, 'NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles.’
The guideline states ‘NHS organisations should work with their patients and staff, local authorities and public transport providers to make sure that users can get to the site (and park if necessary) as safely, conveniently and economically as possible. Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable.’ It defines 'reasonable' as follows:
"additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (eg commuters) or who persistently flout parking regulations (eg blocking entrances). A period of grace should normally be applied before a parking charge is issued"
It is clear according to this guideline that the charges in this case are not reasonable under the circumstances.

Do I have a case or not?

Thanks you for your help

[des8]

Could you please post up a full copy of the court claim? (if you have transcribed the full wording DCBL are losing their touch!)

Do you still have the original PCN as attached to the screen, and the Notice to Keeper you would have been sent?
If so please post them up.

have you responded to First Parking, DCBL or DCB Legal, and if so did you identify the driver?

You should now send a CPR31.14 request to DCB Legal and a Subject access Request to First Parking (templates are in SHORTCUTS panel on right of this page. They are primarily designed for debt problems so need amending for your situation)
Do not identify the driver when communicating with them.

Finally I would suggest as a first move you ask the hospital management to instruct First Parking to cancel the charge and insist that FP tell DCB Legal to discontinue the claim

[CubeKramer]

Hi Thanks for the response! It was back in February and I think I lost the ticket and stupidly totally forgot about it . I dont think I responded but cant remember. I did keep hold of the scratchcard though.

The wording is:
1. The defendant is indebted to the Clement for a parking charge issued to vehicle ...... at address... ....
2. The PCN(s) were issued on the 22 February 2024
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for a breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Parked while not displaying a valid scratch card or permit
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 scheduled 4.
And the Clements claims
1 £170 being the total of the PCN and damages
2 Interest at a rate of 8% per an pursuant to s.69 of the County courts act 1984 from the date here of at a daily rate of £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3 Costs and court fees

I sent the SAR and will send the CPR31.14 today. I haven't identified the driver - but isnt this obvious as Ive worked here for 15 years?

re the cpr31.14 is this bit relevant to me or do I delete?:
For your information and records I enclose a copy of the formal request for a copy of the credit agreement relating to this claim, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which has been posted to your client with the statutory fee of £1 today, xx/xx/xxxx.

Thanks so much for your help, much appreciated.
I'll head to parking now and see if they can get it cancelled!

[CubeKramer]

No luck with getting it cancelled - the lady in charge is always off having a fag and Im now off for 2.5 weeks

[des8]

they obviously don't know the identity of the driver, hence they are pursuing either the driver or the keeper (which is a technicality you can use in your defence as they should not be posting a menu from which to pick and choose)

In the /CPRrequest omit reference to CA, but do ask specifically for copies of the alleged contract i.e.the signage

[des8]

No luck with getting it cancelled - the lady in charge is always off having a fag and Im now off for 2.5 weeks

That's pants .. the health authority or hospital employs the parking company and can order its cancellation.
How "in charge" is the fag lady? don't suppose she set up the parking contract so speak to her manager
Are you a member of a union or staff organisation that can bring pressure to bear?

There's lots of time before it reaches a court hearing, and getting it cancelled is easier than court

[CubeKramer]

Hi thank you for all your help. Its greatly appreciated.
Im away for 2.5 weeks - so I'll crack on with a defence.
When I get back I'll try and find out if there is anyone else I can speak to about this to get it cancelled.
A part of me thinks pay as Im not entirely sure I have a defence (having worked there a long time), but I guess on the other hand the judge might make the fine more reasonable.
Any way thank you

[des8]

You have IMO good defences, but no need to rush drafting it.
Your defence isn't due to be filed & served until early Nov, so wait and see what they respond to your requests.

When you get replies post them up on this thread.
If you don't receive replies give us a nudge around 25 Oct for assistance with your defence

[CubeKramer]

This is the reply letter from the solicitor:

Dear ????,



We write further to your correspondence dated 12/10/2024.



Please find the relevant evidence enclosed as per your request.



The Notice to Keeper was issued to you on 25/03/2024. A copy is enclosed. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding. The vehicle was parked whilst not displaying a valid scratch card or permit.



The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit/ticket, or otherwise a parking charge notice would be issued. A valid permit/ticket was not on display as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence enclosed. The parking charge was issued correctly. See enclosed images of vehicle, sign and site plan.





Please note, a claim was issued against you on the 02/10/2024 in the amount of £262.76. If payment is made of the claim amount, then legal proceedings will cease.



Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
• Sort Code: 20-24-09
• Account Number: 60964441

You must quote the correct case reference when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 434 0424 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/



Kind Regards,

[CubeKramer]

Here is the redacted rest of the NTK

[CubeKramer]

this is a picture of the signage - but this sign is always hidden by a car - Ill upload my photos quite an interesting difference

[CubeKramer]

and now for the real pictures - no signage on road into car park, no marked parking spaces, only 1 visible sign hidden by only 1 car in parking area

[CubeKramer]

and these

[CubeKramer]

So my defence which I will submit tomorrow will basically be that I bought a valid scratch card when the cashiers office opened , the signage is woefully inadequate and published government guidelines, 'NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles.’ haven't been applied in this case.

To be honest most of my defence was going to come from the MSE template on the parking forum there with point 3 being : (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com...ted-in-2024/p1)

3. The defendant works at West Middlesex University hospital. On the date in question the defendant had to wait for the cashier’s office to open to buy a scratch card (between 10am-12.30pm and 2-4pm). £2.50 was paid for a valid scratch-card that day and it was displayed as soon as it was obtained.

[des8]

By all means follow MSE template, but be sure to add that the Parking Company have failed to comply with the conditions required by POFA 2012 to transfer liability for any unpaid charge from driver to registered keeper.
POFA 2012 sch4 (2) (a) requires the notice to keeper specifies the period of parking to which the notice applies.
The notice only states a time (viz 10.23) and that is not a period
therefor the claimant cannot transfer liability to the keeper for any unpaid charges

Additionally that sign states " Permit Holders Only" so if a non permit holder parks there the driver is trespassing.
There is no offer for a non-permit holder to park there and it is not possible to contract to do something (park) which is forbidden.
So the claim which is for breach of contract (see the particulars) is a non starter.
Don't worry about a trespassing claim as that can only be made by the land occupier

IMO your para 3 is weak: You should be careful not to admit being the driver, so you should consider changing your point three argument to "the driver works" ... and "the driver paid..."
The claimant is almost bound to suggest the scratch card could have been purchased in advance, especially as the driver was most probably aware of the rules.

You claim the signage is inadequate, but as the driver probably parked there often, and later admittedly purchased a scratch card, they were obviously fully aware of the conditions

Guidelines re parking rules are only that "guidelines" and and do not need to be followed

Be very careful about how you word your defence!