IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Urgent advice kindly requested - County Claim (Gladstone Solicitors)
Options
Comments
-
Yes 13 is necessary. Its if signs ARENT adequate, a driver isn't bound by them. It is a necessary consequence of the conclusion that adequate signs mean a driver cant say they arent bound by them.
Dennings red hand rule is a very old legal test.0 -
thanks guys, understood. So I plan to keep both points in, include a pdf of Vine vs Waltham, but there's no need to include any supporting evidence for Dennings red hand rule.
I'll make some tweaks and share the latest WS shortly. thanks again, much appreciated!0 -
Latest Witness Statement:
I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
I as the defendant deny I am liable for the entirety of this claim for the following reasons:
1. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.
2. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.
3. On the date and time in question, the driver entered and parked at XXX Meadows residential area. Upon entering the area, the driver came across no obvious signage, barriers, pay-and-display machines or any other suggestion that there were parking restrictions in place. I refer to the video evidence submitted that shows a driver's perspective upon entering the residential area.
4. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.
5. Additionally such scant Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.
6. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.
7. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.
8. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community’s (IPC) Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.
9. With regards to the placement of signage, the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice states that:
o “Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist”
10. With regards to the content of signage, the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice states that signs should:
o “Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land”
o “Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions”
o “Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered)”
11. With regards to the text size / font of signage, the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice states that:
o “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”
12. I also include a photograph that indicates an example parking sign, as designed by the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice. I note that this sign, by design, makes it clear that the notice refers to parking (as indicated by the large font letter “P”) so it is clear to any motorist what the notice is referring to. I submit that the signs used by the claimant do not make it clear what the notice is referring to, due to the complicated design and small font type.
13. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant’s signs that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”
14. I would ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest ('Vine') insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation.
15. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. The IPC code of conduct states the following:
o "Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way."
16. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
0 -
Have you got a photo of the sign?
You probably also have a 'forbidding contract' argument as, if non-residents weren't allowed to park there then there is no meaningful 'offer' or 'benefit' to non-residents so a 'contract' as per Beavis can't really exist. Look up PCM vs Bull and Horizon vs Guildford for support. Terms of parking only apply to those 'authorised to park'.
What does it say of the Particulars of Claim?0 -
High up on a wall with small font:muleskinner wrote: »Have you got a photo of the sign?
You probably also have a 'forbidding contract' argument as, if non-residents weren't allowed to park there then there is no meaningful 'offer' or 'benefit' to non-residents so a 'contract' as per Beavis can't really exist. Look up PCM vs Bull and Horizon vs Guildford for support. Terms of parking only apply to those 'authorised to park'.
What does it say of the Particulars of Claim?
0 -
Thought so.
This is more-or-less exactly the same as the signage in my case (hearing 12th Feb).
This is a forbidding notice - it offers no meaningful contract to park to non-residents. If they are suing you for breach of contract then the very act of entering into the contract (parking) would also be the breach, making it impossible to perform.
These are technical points but have won it for some - PCM vs Bull uses very similar wording to this.
What do the NTK and PCN say as the reason for the charge?
In my case PPM have changed stance at the WS stage and are now saying the charge is for 'parking services', ie this is a contractual offer to park, you just pay £100 for the privilege. This is BS for a number of reasons including...
- The contract with the landowner almost definitely won't allow for them offering 'parking services' on the land.
- The invoice probably almost definitely didn't contain VAT which it should do if it was a service.
- All the documentation you've received (NTK, PCN) probably refer to a charge for 'unauthorised parking' or similar
- In my case the driver was actually told by the 'warden' to remove the vehicle as parking wasn't allowed!
It's worth making these arguments as there's a good chance the Judge will look at that notice, call a spade a spade and conclude it's a prohibitory notice masquerading as a contract - therefore the only issue is one of trespass for which no damages are due.0 -
See also CS047-PACE v Lengyel (ref impossibility of performance):-
lhttp://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html0 -
muleskinner wrote: »Thought so.
This is more-or-less exactly the same as the signage in my case (hearing 12th Feb).
This is a forbidding notice - it offers no meaningful contract to park to non-residents. If they are suing you for breach of contract then the very act of entering into the contract (parking) would also be the breach, making it impossible to perform.
These are technical points but have won it for some - PCM vs Bull uses very similar wording to this.
What do the NTK and PCN say as the reason for the charge?
In my case PPM have changed stance at the WS stage and are now saying the charge is for 'parking services', ie this is a contractual offer to park, you just pay £100 for the privilege. This is BS for a number of reasons including...
- The contract with the landowner almost definitely won't allow for them offering 'parking services' on the land.
- The invoice probably almost definitely didn't contain VAT which it should do if it was a service.
- All the documentation you've received (NTK, PCN) probably refer to a charge for 'unauthorised parking' or similar
- In my case the driver was actually told by the 'warden' to remove the vehicle as parking wasn't allowed!
It's worth making these arguments as there's a good chance the Judge will look at that notice, call a spade a spade and conclude it's a prohibitory notice masquerading as a contract - therefore the only issue is one of trespass for which no damages are due.
"Our client has previously written to you requesting payment of a parking charge."
and
"We recently issued Parking Charge Notice XXX to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at XXX that we are authorised to manage by our client. This PCN was issued on the XX December 2015 at XX:XX and has not been paid. The reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is as follows: Not Displaying a Valid Permit."0 -
That's typically vague.
The way the sign is presented clearly implies parking is permitted for permit holders only. If the driver, as a non-resident, is not permitted to park then they cannot be seen to have entered into a 'parking contract'.
The 'PCM vs Bull' transcript has the judge pulling apart precisely this type of 'you can't park here but if you do...' nonsense.0 -
Thanks all, have made some more edits:
I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
I as the defendant deny I am liable for the entirety of this claim for the following reasons:
1. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.
2. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.
3. On the date and time in question, the driver entered and parked at XX Meadows residential area. Upon entering the area, the driver came across no obvious signage, barriers, pay-and-display machines or any other suggestion that there were parking restrictions in place. I refer to the video evidence submitted that shows a driver's perspective upon entering the residential area.
4. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.
5. Additionally such scant Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.
6. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.
7. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.
8. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community’s (IPC) Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.
9. With regards to the placement of signage, the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice states that:
o “Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist”
10. With regards to the content of signage, the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice states that signs should:
o “Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land”
o “Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions”
o “Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered)”
11. With regards to the text size / font of signage, the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice states that:
o “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”
12. I also include a photograph that indicates an example parking sign, as designed by the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice. I note that this sign, by design, makes it clear that the notice refers to parking, as indicated by the large font letter “P”, so it is clear to any motorist what the notice is referring to. I submit that the signs used by the claimant do not make it clear what the notice is referring to, due to the complicated design and small font type.
13. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant’s signs that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”
14. I would ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest ('Vine') insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation.
15. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. The IPC code of conduct states the following:
o "Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way."
16. I have submitted a photograph of the signage on site, which explicitly states that parking is for permit holders only. Therefore if the driver, a non-permit-holder, is not permitted to park, they cannot be seen to have entered into a parking contract. I would ask the court to consider the case of “PCM vs Bull”, attached, which relates to the permission to park and subsequent non-contract.
17. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards