Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Stevie_T

Excel Windscreen PCN Claimform - Parked in a disabled space - MIDDLESBROUGH LIESURE PARK

Recommended Posts

I've done some work to the section I'll paste below. (obviously the section numbers will change) These points are all supported by EXHIBIT A1 which I will attach here. 

 

      ENTRANCE TO CAR PARK

 

1.            On [DATE] the defendant visited Pizza Hut with a party of friends. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle travelled along North Ormesby Road, turned right onto Woodside Street and sharp left into the parking area in front of Pizza Hut. This is the most obvious and direct route to Pizza Hut. See Exhibit A1 for details.
 

2.      There were no signs pertaining to the claims of the claimant visible to the driver of the vehicle on the route set out in Exhibit A1

 

3.      Taking the route laid out in Exhibit A1 clearly results in the act of “parking”. It must therefore follow that the vehicle has “entered” the car park. This entrance must be located either at the point of leaving North Ormesby Road and entering Woodland Street or else it is at the point of leaving Woodlands Street and entering the parking area.

 

4.      These two possible locations of the entrance are shown in Exhibit A1. Whichever is the case neither location has a sign at the entrance to the car park. It is therefore not possible that the defendant entered into a contract with the claimant.

 

5.      Neither location that may be considered the “entrance” to the car park bears a sign erected by the claimant.

 

6.      There were no signs erected by the claimant visible to pedestrians as the party left the vehicle and entered Pizza Hut.

Exhibit-A1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Middlesbrough Council portal a search for "Excel" - "Excel Parking Services" - "Excel Parking Services Ltd" produced no results. A search for "The Leisure Fund Ltd" brought up a request for planning permission for a building extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good spot, Stevie. :)  Does that PP cover parking?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was specifically for an extension to add an extra cinema screen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is for them to prove they have the necessary consents so your edidence is enough in this respect.

 

Now you must read up and copy the town and Country Planning Act 2007 section about advertising display hoardings etc.

they will claim they have " deemed consent" but this applies to signage that is informational not advertising and they are advertising a contract and it is therefore necessary to apply for that permission under whichever of the later sectiosn of the rges apply.

 

you can point out that siganeg that fits in witht eh "deemed consent" is restricted in size so would be too small and would be considered illegible as it is aimed at the driver of a moving vehicle. this is secondary to the lack of an offer by way of signage at the entrance to the land so no offer and consideration.

 

There are cases that were chucked out because of both of these defences so look at the parking pranksters blogspot and use whatever you can find. look for other case law on unilateral contracts and offer and consideration  as well, it doesnt have to be about parking.

 

the size of the fonts,

the colour of the signs and characters,

 

the relative size fo the main points such as you have to pay £100  for breaching a term is the core consideration so they need to be of equal size or bigger than the main  notice and this is rarely the case so it can be taken that the matters in the small print are not a fiar contract under S62 of the consumer rights act.

 

again this point is one that isnt always taken on board by a judge so to be used in conjunction with commenst on quality of signs, siting of signs and their illumination  etc to give an overall picture rather than a specific killer point.

 

Dont forget the judge's decision in anohter case on this forum that determined that each disabled space must have its own signage( not just a paint job) and the terms for their use must be made clear at the entrance and not just on the space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been at this all day and I'm going crosseyed🤪

I'm going to paste what I have so far and attach Exhibits A1 and A2. Still to come is Exhibit  A3  which is  the bits of previous judgements I've found. I think I need to post this Weds - Thurs latest

 

=====================
 

1.            The defendant is the keeper of the vehicle [REGISTRATION NUMBER]. On [ DATE] the claimant issued a charge notice claiming that the vehicle was parked in a manner that breached a unilateral contract offered by way of signage at the car park situated at Middlesbrough Leisure Park.

 

2.            The defendant denies being the driver at the time. The claimant has failed to follow the protocols of the POFA. There is no keeper liability in this matter.

 

3.            In the case of UKCPS LTD v MURPHY the claim against the defendant was dismissed on the grounds that the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. See Exhibit A3

NOTE I’m not sure how to express the POFA and driver/keeper issue. It’s all a bit confusing to me. Any suggestions?

 
ENTRANCE TO CAR PARK

 

4.            On [DATE] the defendant visited Pizza Hut with a party of friends. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle travelled along North Ormesby Road, turned right onto Woodside Street and sharp left into the parking area in front of Pizza Hut. This is the most obvious and direct route to Pizza Hut. See Exhibit A1 for details.
 

5.            There were no signs pertaining to the claims of the claimant visible to the driver of the vehicle on the route set out in Exhibit A1

 

6.            Taking the route laid out in Exhibit A1 clearly results in the act of “parking”. It must therefore follow that the vehicle has “entered” the car park. This entrance must be located either at the point of leaving North Ormesby Road and entering Woodland Street or else it is at the point of leaving Woodlands Street and entering the parking area.

 

7.            These two possible locations of the entrance are shown in Exhibit A1. Whichever is the case neither location has a sign at the entrance to the car park. It is therefore not possible that the defendant entered into a contract with the claimant on the grounds of (non-existent) signage.

 

8.            Neither location that may be considered the “entrance” to the car park bears a sign erected by the claimant.
 

9.            There were no signs erected by the claimant visible to pedestrians as the party left the vehicle and entered Pizza Hut.
 

10.         The claimant’s Exhibits show a notice tucked under the windscreen of the defendant’s car. This notice was not seen by the driver or the defendant. Either it had blown away or was unnoticed and became dislodged when the wipers were used. This fact is not presented as evidence or a defence but merely as an observation

 


SIGNAGE

 

 

11.         On receiving the notice to begin proceedings, the defendant visited Pizza Hut once again to investigate. By exploring the area on foot, it was found that on the route the vehicle took described above there is one sign on the side of the Pizza Hut building. It is located by the refuse bins and on the passenger side of the vehicle.

 

12.         The content and location of the sign can be seen in Exhibit A2. It is not readable to a passing vehicle being on the wrong side of the vehicle and in too small a font and containing too much extraneous information.
 

13.         There is a small sticker pasted over some earlier information. The sticker says “14 days” and is in an even smaller font than the rest of the sign.
 

 

14.         The content of the sign reads as follows. The defendant has broken it down into segments for the purpose of clarity:
 

    1. WELCOME TO MIDDLESBROUGH CAR PARK

 

    1. CAR PARK  ALAILABLE FOR MIDDLESBROUGH LEISURE PARK CUSTOMERS ONLY WHILST USING THE FACILITIES ONSITE

 

    1. ANYONE PARKING IN A BLUE BAY & LEAVING/WALKING OFF SITE WILL RESULT IN

 

    1. THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE OF A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100 BEING ENFORCED, DISCOUNTED TO £69 IF THE PAYMENT IS RECEIVED WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE ISSUE DATE. ADDITIONAL COSTS WILL BE INCURRED THROUGH LATE PAYMENT DEBT RECOVERY AND/OR COURT ENFORCEMENT.

 

15.         With regard to segment 14b the defendant has not contravened this stipulation since the defendant was indeed using the onsite facilities, namely Pizza Hut.
 

16.         The segment 14c requires that the person using the car park does not walk off site. The defendant did not do this.

 

17.         The remainder of the sign in segment 14d concentrates on the remedies the claimant will invoke if the defendant should contravene any of the preceding requirements. This represents forty-four words out of a total of sixty-eight with only twenty-four representing the terms the claimant wished the defendant to adhere to. This suggests that perhaps the claimant's real interest lies in a failure to comply, than actually seeking to bring to a driver's attention any information pertaining to the use of the car park.
 

  1.  Excel V Cutts in 19th April 2012 finds against Excel on the issue of wording. Although in the case of Excel V Cutts the issue is about pay and display and not as in this case “disabled” bays the issue of “failure to comply” taking dominance is the same. See Exhibit A3
     

19.         The sign does NOT require a driver not to park in a supposed “disabled” bay.
 

20.         If this one sign placed on the route to enter the car park that the defendant’s vehicle took is to constitute a contract to which the defendant supposedly entered into then there is no case to answer as all the conditions of the sign were met. There is no requirement not to park in a “disabled bay”

 

21.         There was another sign on the driver’s side of the vehicle which the driver did see. The location, aspect & contents of this sign can be seen in Exhibit A2. The sign was noticed due to its clear visibility, location and large font size. This sign is substantially more prominent and visible than the one beside the Pizza Hut refuse bins.

 

22.         Neither the driver nor the keeper contravened any of the stipulations of this sign. However, it became apparent on a return investigative visit that this sign refers to a different car park not operated by Excel Parking.


 

23.         The bays to which the claimant refers do not meet any of the requirements that constitute a properly laid out disabled bay. There are no blue signs indicating that they are disabled bays. There is a faded washed out squiggle as the picture dated January 3rd 2019 shows. The supposed disabled bays can be seen in images in Exhibit A2.
 

24.         The picture dated ???? shows that a white car completely covers the faded squiggle. The car to the left is the defendant’s car which covers the second faded squiggle.

 

25.         The claimant’s own photographs have been used in this instance because they show how the parking spaces looked at the time the defendant’s vehicle parked there. The claimant has since repainted the spaces and erected a blue “disabled parking” sign at each.

 

26.         The defendant concludes that Excel is aware that their signs are inadequate and deduces that judgment(s) may have been found against the claimant hence the changes that have been made subsequent to the defendant's vehicle being parked there.
 

27.         Disabled bays are not enforceable on private land hence the claimant’s reliance on their claim that a contract was entered into on the grounds of signage. The signage is badly sited, confusing and contradictory. A contract cannot have been entered into.
 

28.         On a return visit and walkabout, the defendant found a range of contradictory signs including signs from other companies. There being only one badly located sign anywhere near the entrance the defendant's vehicle took (apart for the one for a different car park). It is somewhat ridiculous to expect anyone to take a tour of the area to read all the signage before entering a restaurant.

 

29.         There is a sign beyond Pizza Hut that is not on the route that the defendant's vehicle took or that the pedestrians subsequently took to enter Pizza Hut as they did not take a tour around the perimeter of the restaurant before entering.

 

30.         The location of this sign, the aspect and the content are shown in Exhibit A2. This sign does NOT forbid the parking in “disabled” bays. It says “Blue Badge Holders are not exempt from the terms and conditions”
 

31.         Just a little further on there is yet another sign with completely different wording. The location, aspect and wording of this sign is shown in Exhibit A2. In this sign a company called “Vehicle Control Services LTD” claim to control and manage the land. This is in contradiction to Excel Parking LTD’s claim to do the same,
 

32.         Excel Parking LTD’s exhibit show the purported wording of their signs printed out over two sheets of A4 paper. This is not the wording featured on EVERY sign in the area.
 

33.         The claimant refers to a large sign placed at the entrance. This is at the Cargo Fleet Road entrance and not the Woodside Street entrance. This is not an offer of contract but an invitation to treat. Anyone entering via Woodside street has no such sign.

34.         The terms of the supposed contract are unfair and unenforceable making the contract void under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62

35.         The claimant has a contract with a managing agent, not the landowner. The claimant has not provided proof that there is a chain of authority that allows them to enter into contract with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.

36.         The claimant states that they are monitoring someone else’s conditions not their own. It is not clear what the landowner has given the claimant the authority to do.

37.         It is unclear what authority VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD have on the site and whether this contradicts or supersedes any authority of EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD.

38.         On the 13th September 2019 the defendant wrote to the claimant asking for confirmation of planning permission to erect signs on the site in order to advertise a contract. No response to this request has been received.
 

39.         The claimant has searched the Middlesbrough Town Council planning portal. A search for "Excel" - "Excel Parking Services" - "Excel Parking Services Ltd" produced no results for planning permission being requested nor granted.
 

40.         A search for "The Leisure Fund Ltd" on Middlesbrough Town Council planning portal brought up a request for planning permission for a building extension. This was for the purpose of an additional cinema screen and had no reference to parking or erecting signage.
 

41.         A search on Middlesbrough Town Council planning portal for "Savills" - "Savills (UK)" - "Savills (UK) Ltd" produced no results at all.
 

42.         The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 states that Planning permission must be granted for advertising signs. The claimant’s signs take the form of an advertisement of a contract on offer.
 

43.         The claimant’s advertising signs do not fall under any of the forms that benefit from “deemed consent”.
 

44.         The larger sign at the Cargo Fleet Road entrance is informational and does not offer a contract. No such sign exists on the Woodside Street entrance which is the entrance the defendant’s vehicle used. The only sign in the vicinity of the Woodside Street entrance is on the wrong side of the road and too small to be seen by a moving vehicle.


 

Exhibit-A1.pdf Exhibit-A2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

point 23 another thing to do if you have the time is to measure the width of the bay.

The RTA states a minimum of 1.8m so although the law doesnt actually apply to private land it is easy to argue that the gold standard  should apply to create equality with concil run car parks otherwise the marking of bays could be deliberately done in a manner that is designed to force motorists to breach the conditions and thus force them to pay the third party parking co rather than  provide a measure of parking management.

 

even asking their rep whether the parking spaces and signage conform to the specs drawn up by the DoT may well be enough, esp if you take evidence of what that spec is for all parking spaces and signage and that will save you from going out with a tape measure and forcing them to do that instead

 

basically quote the regs and have the references in your WS and all of the detail as additional evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ericsbrother said:

point 23 another thing to do if you have the time is to measure the width of the bay.

 

I was over there last week taking stock.I guess I should have done that. I might get a chance later today or tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not the end of the world if you cant, asking the question and showing they dont know the answer should be enough as long as you can demonstrate what the correct spec is.

 

as said the law doesnt actually apply to private land but as in all matters here judges have decided that some sort of uniformity must apply otherwise the parking co's will paint their boxes too small on purpose just to get the money.

 

It also shows the limits of their powers because in reality they have no say on what paint jobs the landlord puts down so it brings into question what exactly do they ahve the powers to do  and that goes back to their contract with the landowner.

 

this allows you to bring this up when the judge may have just waved it through as being legit if there wasnt somehting else.

reminds me, I would state that they have failed to produce the necessary authority by way of a contract with the landowner that assigns them the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name. make this point 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I'll add that. If you get a chance can you go point 2 and give me a hand with the POFA stuff. I've read up on it but I'm struggling to understand. I'm not sure how to make my point. To my mind I was never explicitly asked to name the driver and never declined to name them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, their NTK MUST contain certain information and phrases to create a keeper liability under the POFA  and VCS dont even try and get this right so they can only claim from the driver at the time

 

now they are assuming that the defendant  as the keeper is likely to be the driver but they are not allowed to make that assumption and it calls into question their right to access the keeper details because if they new the identity fo the driver they wouldnt need to look up the keeper details on the DVLA database.

 

However, this is a different battle but as they dotn know the identity of the driver and if they are relying on keeper laibility then (1) the amount of money they can ask for is limited to the amount on the NTK- no add ons) and (2) they have faild to show a cause for action against the defendant  without showing strict proof of the identity of the driver at the time ( they waffle on about probability and irrelevant case law that has been rejected before every time it is challenged)

 

the point to drive home is that without the adhereence to EVERY part of the POFA  and their trade association rules then they cant claim from anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I'll word that into my document. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

point 23 another thing to do if you have the time is to measure the width of the bay.

 

Their bays are 3m   reccomened are 3.6m

I've found other specs that they don't meet

these are not disabled parking bays at all

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23.    The bays to which the claimant refers do not meet any of the requirements that constitute a properly laid out disabled bay. There is a faded washed out squiggle as the picture dated January 3rd 2019 shows. The supposed disabled bays can be seen in images in Exhibit A2.
 

24.    The parking bays purported to be “disabled” fall short of requirements and recommendations on all counts.  The defendant has consulted various government portals INCLUDING: Inclusive Mobility published by DfT, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 & The British Parking Association (2016) – see exhibit A3. The information acquired the following irregularities:

a.    There are no blue signs set at drivers eyeline height indicating that these are disabled bays.

b.    The width of the bays fall short by over half a metre

c.    There should be a yellow hatched walkway space for wheel chairs to the side of the vehicle

d.    There should be yellow hatched area behind the vehicle area for safety and access to lifting equipment etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now up to the seventh draft and have made various tweaks and improvements taking on board advice and suggestions. I'm hoping to post this Thurs latest. I will paste below and attach the exhibits pages

 

====================

Introduction

 

 

1.    I am a private citizen and I have no knowledge or experience of court procedures and protocols. I have done some research and reading. Hopefully I am able to present my position as well a layman is able.
 

2.    I will refer to various images and documents that can be found appended to these pages under Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and Exhibit 3
 

3.    The defendant is the keeper of the vehicle [REGISTRATION NUMBER]. On [ DATE] the claimant issued a charge notice claiming that the vehicle was parked in a manner that breached a unilateral contract offered by way of signage at the car park situated at Middlesbrough Leisure Park.

 

4.    The defendant denies being the driver at the time. The claimant has failed to follow the protocols of the POFA. There is no keeper liability in this matter.

 

5.    The claimant is assuming that the defendant as the keeper is likely to be the driver. The claimant has no right to make such assumptions. It is not clear to the Defendant that the claimant ever sought the identity of the driver beyond a simple assumption and the defendant has not refused to name the driver but the fact remains that the defendant was not the driver and the driver has not been named.

 

6.    If the claimant is relying on keeper liability then the amount of money the claimant can ask for is limited to the amount on the NTK without any  add on’s.

 

7.    The claimant has failed to show a cause for action against the defendant having not shown strict proof of the identity of the driver at the time. The claimant is relying on "probability" of this being the case. The claimant has not adhered to EVERY part of the POFA and their claim against the defendant is invalid

 

8.    In the case of UKCPS LTD v MURPHY the claim against the defendant was dismissed on the grounds that the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. See Exhibit A3

 

9.    The defendant has failed to produce the necessary authority by way of a contract with the landowner.  The claimant has a contract with a managing agent, not the landowner. The claimant has not shown evidence of a contract with the landowner that assigns to the claimant the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.
 

10. The claimant states that they are monitoring someone else’s conditions not their own. It is not clear what the landowner has given the claimant the authority to do.



ENTRANCE TO CAR PARK

 

11. On [DATE] the defendant visited Pizza Hut with a party of friends. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle travelled along North Ormesby Road, turned right onto Woodside Street and sharp left into the parking area in front of Pizza Hut. This is the most obvious and direct route to Pizza Hut. See Exhibit A1 for details.
 

12. There were no signs pertaining to the claims of the claimant visible to the driver of the vehicle on the route set out in Exhibit A1

 

13. Taking the route laid out in Exhibit A1 clearly results in the act of “parking”. It must therefore follow that the vehicle has “entered” the car park. This entrance must be located either at the point of leaving North Ormesby Road and entering Woodland Street or else it is at the point of leaving Woodlands Street and entering the parking area.

 

14. These two possible locations of the entrance are shown in Exhibit A1. Whichever is the case neither location has a sign at the entrance to the car park. It is therefore not possible that the defendant entered into a contract with the claimant on the grounds of (non-existent) signage.

 

15. Neither location that may be considered the “entrance” to the car park bears a sign erected by the claimant.
 

16. There were no signs erected by the claimant visible to pedestrians as the party left the vehicle and entered Pizza Hut.
 

17. The claimant’s Exhibits show a notice tucked under the windscreen of the defendant’s car. This notice was not seen by the driver or the defendant. Either it had blown away or was unnoticed and became dislodged when the wipers were used. This fact is not presented as evidence or a defence but merely as an observation

 


SIGNAGE

 

18. On receiving the notice to begin proceedings, the defendant visited Pizza Hut once again to investigate. By exploring the area on foot, it was found that on the route the vehicle took described above there is one sign on the side of the Pizza Hut building. It is located by the refuse bins and on the passenger side of the vehicle.

 

19. The content and location of the sign can be seen in Exhibit A2. It is not readable to a passing vehicle being on the wrong side of the vehicle and in too small a font and containing too much extraneous information.
 

20. There is a small sticker pasted over some earlier information. The sticker says “14 days” and is in an even smaller font than the rest of the sign.
 

 

21. The content of the sign reads as follows. The defendant has broken it down into segments for the purpose of clarity:
 

a.    WELCOME TO MIDDLESBROUGH CAR PARK

 

b.    CAR PARK ALAILABLE FOR MIDDLESBROUGH LEISURE PARK CUSTOMERS ONLY WHILST USING THE FACILITIES ONSITE

 

c.    ANYONE PARKING IN A BLUE BAY & LEAVING/WALKING OFF SITE WILL RESULT IN

 

d.    THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE OF A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100 BEING ENFORCED, DISCOUNTED TO £69 IF THE PAYMENT IS RECEIVED WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE ISSUE DATE. ADDITIONAL COSTS WILL BE INCURRED THROUGH LATE PAYMENT DEBT RECOVERY AND/OR COURT ENFORCEMENT.

 

22. With regard to segment 21b the defendant has not contravened this stipulation since the defendant was indeed using the onsite facilities, namely Pizza Hut.
 

23. The segment 21c requires that the person using the car park does not walk off site. The defendant did not do this.

 

24. The remainder of the sign in segment 21d concentrates on the remedies the claimant will invoke if the defendant should contravene any of the preceding requirements. This represents forty-four words out of a total of sixty-eight with only twenty-four representing the terms the claimant wished the defendant to adhere to. This suggests that perhaps the claimant's real interest lies in a failure to comply, than actually seeking to bring to a driver's attention any information pertaining to the use of the car park.
 

25.  Excel V Cutts in 19th April 2012 finds against Excel on the issue of wording. Although in the case of Excel V Cutts the issue is about pay and display and not as in this case “disabled” bays the issue of “failure to comply” taking dominance is the same. See Exhibit A3
 

26. The sign does NOT prohibit a vehicle from parking in a supposed “disabled” bay.
 

27. If this one sign placed on the route to enter the car park that the defendant’s vehicle took is to constitute a contract to which the defendant supposedly entered into then there is no case to answer as all the conditions of the sign were met. There is no requirement not to park in a “disabled bay”

 

28. There was another sign on the driver’s side of the vehicle which the driver did see. The location, aspect & contents of this sign can be seen in Exhibit A2. The sign was noticed due to its clear visibility, location and large font size. This sign is substantially more prominent and visible than the one beside the Pizza Hut refuse bins.

 

29. Neither the driver nor the keeper contravened any of the stipulations of this sign. However, it became apparent on a return investigative visit that this sign refers to a different car park not operated by Excel Parking.
 

30. The bays to which the claimant refers do not meet any of the requirements that constitute a properly laid out disabled bay. There is a faded washed out squiggle as the picture dated January 3rd 2019 shows. The supposed disabled bays can be seen in images in Exhibit A2.
 

31. The picture dated ???? shows that a white car completely covers the faded squiggle. The car to the left is the defendant’s car which covers the second faded squiggle.

 

32. The bays to which the claimant refers do not meet any of the requirements that constitute a properly laid out disabled bay. There is a faded washed out squiggle as the picture dated January 3rd 2019 shows. The supposed disabled bays can be seen in images in Exhibit A2.
 

33. The parking bays purported to be “disabled” fall short of requirements and recommendations on all counts.  The defendant has consulted various government portals INCLUDING: Inclusive Mobility published by DfT, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 & The British Parking Association (2016) – see exhibit A3. The information acquired shows the following irregularities:

a.    There are no blue signs set at drivers eyeline height indicating that these are disabled bays.

b.    The width of the bays fall short by over half a metre

c.    There should be a yellow hatched walkway space for wheel chairs to the side of the vehicle

d.    There should be yellow hatched area behind the vehicle area for safety and access to lifting equipment etc.

 

34. The claimant’s own photographs have been used in Exhibit A2 because they show how the parking spaces looked at the time the defendant’s vehicle parked there. The claimant has since repainted the spaces and erected a blue “disabled parking” sign at each.

 

35. The defendant concludes that Excel is aware that their signs are inadequate and deduces that judgment(s) may have been found against the claimant hence the changes that have been made subsequent to the defendant's vehicle being parked there.
 

36. Disabled bays are not enforceable on private land hence the claimant’s reliance on their claim that a contract was entered into on the grounds of signage. The signage is badly sited, confusing and contradictory. A contract cannot have been entered into.


 

37. On a return visit and walkabout, the defendant found a range of contradictory signs including signs from other companies. There being only one badly located sign anywhere near the entrance the defendant's vehicle took (apart for the one for a different car park). It is somewhat ridiculous to expect anyone to take a tour of the area to read all the signage before entering a restaurant.

 

38. There is a sign beyond Pizza Hut that is not on the route that the defendant's vehicle took or that the pedestrians subsequently took to enter Pizza Hut as they did not take a tour around the perimeter of the restaurant before entering.
 

39. The location of this sign, the aspect and the content are shown in Exhibit A2. This sign does NOT forbid the parking in “disabled” bays. It says “Blue Badge Holders are not exempt from the terms and conditions”
 

40. Just a little further on there is yet another sign with completely different wording. The location, aspect and wording of this sign is shown in Exhibit A2. In this sign a company called “Vehicle Control Services LTD” claim to control and manage the land. This is in contradiction to Excel Parking LTD’s claim to do the same.
 

41. It is unclear what authority VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD have on the site and whether this contradicts or supersedes any authority of EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD.

 

42. Excel Parking LTD’s exhibit show the purported wording of their signs printed out over two sheets of A4 paper. This is not the wording featured on EVERY sign in the area.
 

43. The claimant refers to a “large” sign placed at the entrance. This is at the Cargo Fleet Road entrance and not the Woodside Street entrance. This is not an offer of contract but an invitation to treat. Anyone entering via Woodside street has no such sign.
 

44. The “large” sign does not face oncoming traffic (notwithstanding that the defendant’s vehicle did not use this entrance). It is sited beside a footpath that travels under the A66 and onwards to the Middlesbrough Football Stadium. It is clear that the primary purpose of this sign is to deter football fans from parking there and walking through the tunnel under the A66 to attend a football match. The sign faces such pedestrians as they take this route. The secondary purpose of this sign is to deter town centre shoppers from parking in Middlesbrough Leisure Park and going into town to shop. The defendant did neither of the things prohibited by this notice.

 

45. The terms of the supposed contract are unfair and unenforceable making the contract void under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62
 

46. On the 13th September 2019 the defendant wrote to the claimant asking for confirmation of planning permission to erect signs on the site in order to advertise a contract. No response to this request has been received.
 

47. The claimant has searched the Middlesbrough Town Council planning portal. A search for "Excel" - "Excel Parking Services" - "Excel Parking Services Ltd" produced no results for planning permission being requested nor granted.
 

48. A search for "The Leisure Fund Ltd" on Middlesbrough Town Council planning portal brought up a request for planning permission for a building extension. This was for the purpose of an additional cinema screen and had no reference to parking or erecting signage.
 

49. A search on Middlesbrough Town Council planning portal for "Savills" - "Savills (UK)" - "Savills (UK) Ltd" produced no results at all.
 

50. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 states that Planning permission must be granted for advertising signs. The claimant’s signs take the form of an advertisement of a contract on offer.
 

51. The claimant’s advertising signs do not fall under any of the forms that benefit from “deemed consent”.
 

52. The larger sign at the Cargo Fleet Road entrance is informational and does not offer a contract. No such sign exists on the Woodside Street entrance which is the entrance the defendant’s vehicle used. The only sign in the vicinity of the Woodside Street entrance is on the wrong side of the road and too small to be seen by a moving vehicle.


 

 

 

EXHIBIT A3.pdf Exhibit-A1.pdf Exhibit-A2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drop point 1, you wont get any sympathy if you use that betting letter but you will be given a lot of leeway on procedural matters as an individual by most judges but they cant show favouritisn and that menas asking for it will get a refusal.

 

Now as far a s bay sizes go you use the ones that councils have to abide by and there are DoT guides on all of the road makings that are legally enforcible in the UK.

 

so going down all the way to point 52. you need to add to this that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, but I posted it today. It had to go.

 

I’m not asking for favoritism in point 1 but apologizing in advance for any procedural mis-steps.  I noticed that the claimant started with a brief introduction in the first person so I did the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the other defences posted here and you wil see that no-one uses such phrases.

 

Say that you are the defendant and then use the third person for the rest of your statement

so you say things like "the defendant" rather than "I" and "the claimant"..

 

Makes things easier to understand when there are other parties involved such as "the landlord" who is not the lot they signed up an agreement with in many cases so the managing agents of the site will be a third party with no interest in the land or the contract.

 

Again this is a point you can raise when stating you dont beleive they have the authority they claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...