Parking Eye ANPR PCN - M&U Phase One, Portishead (Lidl, Travelodge, Subway).

[ericsbrother]

phone up council and ask who owns the land or ask the Valuations Agency. All of these listed on your screenshot are just involved with the planning application, not the landowners, who may have changed once PP was granted anyway

[bellx15]

I just have a couple of points to air about the wording of both the court claim and the signs.

 

 

1. In the court claim, it says: "3.The signage, clearly displayed throughout the car park, states that this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye Ltd., and is a max stay site, along with other T&Cs by which those who park on the site agree to be bound. In accordance with the T&Cs set out in the signage, the parking charge became payable.".

 

"In accordance with the T&Cs set out in the signage." The parking charge is incurred by failing to comply with the T&Cs. That's what it says on the signs, too. The obligation to pay £100 is therefore not one of the T&Cs. It arises as a result of failing to observe the T&Cs. So the above explanation in red is factually incorrect. It states that the obligation to pay £100 is one of the T&Cs.

 

2. So now consider the wording on the signage:

 

 

"Failure to comply with the T&Cs will result in a charge of £100"

 

That seems very legible and clear. Again, it implies that the obligation to pay £100 is not one of the T&Cs, but arises if the T&Cs are not observed. But in order to understand and accept it, the driver needs to be able to read the T&Cs, which is obviously impossible from any distance. So the alleged 'contract' cannot be entered into by the motorist, because it is not visible.

 

Summary:

 

1. The wording on the court claim form is incorrect.

2. The £100 rule is not one of the T&Cs

 

 

and irrespective of 1 and 2:

 

 

3. Entering into a contract with PE entails knowing what it is - its T&Cs, which are not readable from the car. Therefore, the motorist cannot enter into the contract.

[ericsbrother]

what are they claiming the money for, under the terms of a contract or for breach of contract? they are different reasons so they have to get it right.

 

 

That is detail to be argued in court, for the short defence respinse to their N1 claim form you merely stae that there was no contract entered into that has such a consideration (charge) and in any case no breach of contract.

Edited August 29, 2018 by honeybee13
Typos

[bellx15]

Thanks.

 

 

The way I read things, there is a contradictory set of claims being made:

 

 

1. On the claim form: "In accordance with the T&Cs set out in the signage ...". This implies that there is a clause in the T&Cs which states that £100 will be charged.

2. On the signage: "Failure to comply with the T&Cs will result in a charge of £100." This demonstrates that the £100 clause is not in the T&Cs, but instead comes into force if the T&Cs are not complied with.

That in itself is a contradiction. So even if we assume that the signage entered me into a contract, the particulars of claim are wrong.

Your question about the contract seems to be a separate one, and I am not sure how to answer it yet.

[ericsbrother]

but on the form are they claiming money due under a contract or for breach of contract?

You need to address their N1 form accordingly and use the strangulation of the english language to argue that their signage itself is confusing and contradictory rather than the claimform. From what you say they are saying you owe £100 for breach of contract as the contract will ahve terms that allow you to park without shelling out £100. If this is not clear then you need to show the entire set of terms

 

Dont get stuck on a slippery slope argument

[honeybee13]

The POCs are in post #49, EB.

 

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

They are avoiding this important popint if the full POC has been shown. That is typical of the parking co's and Gladdys and their ilk always try and avoid this along with showing what capacity they are suing the defendant. PE will have at east created a keeper liability by their signage except in a very small number of cases.

[bellx15]

"1.Claim for monies outstanding, as registered keeper, in relation to a parking charge, issued 05/05/2018, for parking on private land in breach of the terms and conditions (the contract)."

 

Particulars of claim.

But then the POC is internally contradictory, since later on it says "in accordance with the T&Cs".

 

If this is not clear then you need to show the entire set of terms

 

This leads me on to my second problem with the signage:

 

To find out what the full T&Cs are, the motorist needs to be able to determine in the car park where they are being stated. He then has to be able to read them.

 

There is no large-font indication on the sign as to where the complete T&Cs are stated on the sign. So since the motorist is unable to see what the T&Cs are, s/he cannot possibly be entering into a contract.

 

but on the form are they claiming money due under a contract or for breach of contract? ..... From what you say they are saying you owe £100 for breach of contract as the contract will ahve terms that allow you to park without shelling out £100. If this is not clear then you need to show the entire set of terms.

 

Yes, the first part of the POC is saying this, whereas the final part says something else. The sign also implies it. But if this were true, the £100 clause must be an extra-contractual one, and therefore unenforceable.

 

 

Dont get stuck on a slippery slope argument

 

Not sure what you mean here.

 

BTW - having read Parking Prankster's book on defending against PE, which all looks unmanageably complex and time-consuming, not to mention stressful, I'm getting to the point where I am not sure how far to pursue this defence. In the book, he provides a link to his own 'skeleton defence', which he says we could use at a pinch as a response to the claim, but the skeleton defence is pages long and quite involved.

 

By comparison with that, it seems on this forum that a relatively brief and simple defence is sufficient in response to the court claim. Would anyone please comment on that?

[dx100uk]

yes but PP knows what he is doing so is confident enough to bring in everything inc the kitchen sink at the first hurdle

theres no need to do that at all.

 

less is more.

 

the rest can be addressed if needs be at the witness statement stage

[bellx15]

OK.

[ericsbrother]

for the moment you arwe stating something quite simple, you dont owe them any money because you didnt enter into a contract with them or whatever.

 

 

 

You then go into why this is the case in your witness statement. They didnt send you a 40 page long POC as they will also fill out the rest of the detail as to why they say you do owe the money later. The simpler the outline defence is now the more room ther is to add things to it later.

 

 

 

Only go about one small reason now and you will be denied the opportunity to raise other things later whereas the no contract argument allows you to raise anything you can dig up from procedural errors to planning or details on the signage

Edited August 30, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[honeybee13]

bellx, I've seen the complete POCs that are in your document. I think it would help EB to advise you if you type up the whole thing verbatim, minus anything that could identify you.

 

 

HB

[bellx15]

Post #49 provides a verbatim transcript, as far as I understand what is being asked for.

 

 

Is there something missing?

[honeybee13]

You're right, nothing's missing. It's the spacing that confused me.

 

 

HB

[bellx15]

OK, good. Someone else edited it into numbered paragraphs. I wrote it out in a single block.

 

for the moment you arwe stating something quite simple, you dont owe them any money because you didnt enter into a contract with them or whatever. ....

 

Only go about one small reason now and you will be denied the opportunity to raise other things later whereas the no contract argument allows you to raise anything you can dig up from procedural errors to planning or details on the signage

 

Yes, I see. This is very helpful - thanks.

[bellx15]

(Lidl, Travelodge, Subway), Harbour Road, Portish

 

Originally Posted by

ScarletPreacher

"You should do as you're told, regardless if it is lawful or not " ?

 

 

 

 

Which ties in with the fact that on their signage you are told there will be a £100 charge

for failure to comply with their T&Cs (contract)

. That implies that the £100 charge is not one of the T&Cs, or a part of the contract, but rather is

what you have to pay for breaching the contract.

 

So you have not entered into a contract to pay £100.

[ericsbrother]

Use the location of the signage to hit them when they do their witness statement. PE have been taken to task on this before, sending out standard computer generated images that dont relate to the actual site. they are not th only company to do this but they do actually turn up to lie face to face sotake note and hit them with your own images and research

[brassnecked]

And highlight their dismissal of need for Planning Permission for their signjage in plain sight in their WS, as no PP is criminal insofar as demanding money is concerned.

[bellx15]

Would some kind person be good enough to summarise the errors PE make regarding location of their signage, please?

[ericsbrother]

parking pranksters blogspot, dec16 2017. there is a link to a paper written on it.

 

Also look at other blogs as at least one has PE claim chucked out of court for perjury on WS and another has a win for defendant and lack of Planning permission (the only one I can find where it was a major thing)

 

you have to look for yourself, we cant do everything for you in real time

[bellx15]

Thanks. But no, I meant just in this particular case.

[ericsbrother]

if you can show us where exactly their signs are by way of a plan and so forth.

If you want to ignore the evidence that will defeat this claim then please at least write out a draft of what you want to go with so we can advise accordingly.

there are no short cuts, you really do have to throw the kitchen sink in with your evidence

[bellx15]

ScarletPreacher - any developments? I've just received a photocopy of PE's form consenting to mediation, but without any accompanying letter or message I've no idea what I'm supposed to do with it. I have one or two suggestions, but ...

[ericsbrother]

you keep it files with the reast of your stuff. It is menaingless in the grand scheme of things. They are hoping that they look good by ticking the box and persuade you to pay them somehting to mitigate thir costs so far.

[bellx15]

I see. So does this imply that they are already prepared to find a compromise solution? Or are they just pretending?