Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 7th Oct 17, 12:34 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 4Thanks
    geordiebill
    Claim Received - Which Case Law
    • #1
    • 7th Oct 17, 12:34 PM
    Claim Received - Which Case Law 7th Oct 17 at 12:34 PM
    Hello!

    I've just received the standard claim from Gladstone's for parking in a car park managed by UK CPM.

    The issue is about my workplace car park - a shared commercial car park - that is free to use for commercial tenants. The PCN was issued through the post on the basis of failure to display a permit. The T&Cs on the signs state that a permit is required, but the day-to-day reality is very different. Commercial tenants do not need to display a permit.

    I have an email from the building management company that was sent out to commercial tenants (including our facilities manager, who has passed it on to me) that explicitly puts this in writing: "I am pleased to inform you that the car park management company will no longer be policing the commercial bays and so any car that is parked in a commercial bay will not be ticketed". This means that there is a long-established understanding that I can enter the car park and use it without a permit - contrary to what is on the signs. As I've never been issued with a permit - and it's understood that I don't need one - it's actually impossible for me to enter into the contract they're offering! I pointed this out to UK CPM but of course they ignored it.

    On top of this, there are numerous problems with the signage. Among others, the sign at the sole entrance to the car park doesn't even belong to UK CPM, but the previous PPC! The UK CPM signs indicate they're members of the BPA but they weren't at the time, they were with IPC. And that's before we get onto the wording. All of this is documented with lots of of photographs of the site.

    Having read around - newbie thread etc - I'm comfortable with the procedure, but would love it if I somebody could point me at the specific case law to cite in this case. Am I dealing with unfair terms, failure to perform contract? I could do with my focus narrowing too when it comes to the defence as there are plenty of things wrong but I could really use a pointer on which to attack.

    I have all documentation. Many thanks in advance.
    GB
    Last edited by geordiebill; 07-10-2017 at 12:43 PM.
Page 1
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 7th Oct 17, 1:42 PM
    • 2,106 Posts
    • 6,001 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #2
    • 7th Oct 17, 1:42 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Oct 17, 1:42 PM
    Having read around - newbie thread etc - I'm comfortable with the procedure, but would love it if I somebody could point me at the specific case law to cite in this case. Am I dealing with unfair terms, failure to perform contract? I could do with my focus narrowing too when it comes to the defence as there are plenty of things wrong but I could really use a pointer on which to attack.
    Originally posted by geordiebill
    It's nothing to do with unfair terms or frustration of contract.

    These circumstances fall under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In other words, since the management company informed commercial tenants that they would not be enforcing parking restrictions in commercial bays, they (or their agents UK CPM) are estopped from reneging on that promise.

    The seminal case on this (one of Lord Denning's, always good to cite) is Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 (Google it to see why it applies).
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 7th Oct 17, 5:05 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    geordiebill
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 17, 5:05 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 17, 5:05 PM
    It's nothing to do with unfair terms or frustration of contract.

    These circumstances fall under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In other words, since the management company informed commercial tenants that they would not be enforcing parking restrictions in commercial bays, they (or their agents UK CPM) are estopped from reneging on that promise.

    The seminal case on this (one of Lord Denning's, always good to cite) is Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 (Google it to see why it applies).
    Originally posted by bargepole
    This is a massive help, thank you! You learn something new every day.

    Would you be able to answer me a quick question via PM please? There's a small bit of detail to add, but I'm not sure how wise it would be to post it on the board, as I know there are prying eyes!
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 7th Oct 17, 5:21 PM
    • 2,106 Posts
    • 6,001 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 17, 5:21 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 17, 5:21 PM
    Would you be able to answer me a quick question via PM please?
    Originally posted by geordiebill
    My inbox is deliberately full, otherwise I get about a million people a day wanting me to write their defence for them.

    I wouldn't worry about 'prying eyes', once your defence goes to the court, the other side will get a copy anyway.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 7th Oct 17, 6:15 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    geordiebill
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:15 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:15 PM
    My inbox is deliberately full, otherwise I get about a million people a day wanting me to write their defence for them.

    I wouldn't worry about 'prying eyes', once your defence goes to the court, the other side will get a copy anyway.
    Originally posted by bargepole
    Ha, yeah, fair point on both of these. I appreciate you much be busy to say the least!

    It was just a small detail I wanted to double check, but it's all good. I'll get cracking.

    A follow up question: would the promissory estoppel angle still be applicable if the vehicle wasn't parked in a commercial bay? The car park is gated and only authorised users can access it. The signage only has two terms of parking:

    - Permits must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times
    - No parking outside of a designated area / parking bay

    The court papers don't specify which T&Cs have been allegedly broken, but their documentation only states "parking without permit". In essence, I entered the car park knowing I didn't require a permit to park, parked in good faith, but received a PCN for failure to display a permit.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 7th Oct 17, 6:33 PM
    • 1,016 Posts
    • 2,021 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #6
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:33 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:33 PM
    The court papers don't specify which T&Cs have been allegedly broken, but their documentation only states "parking without permit".
    What do the particulars of claim actually state? What is the issue date on the court papers?
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 7th Oct 17, 6:41 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    geordiebill
    • #7
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:41 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:41 PM
    What do the particulars of claim actually state? What is the issue date on the court papers?
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Issue date is 4 Oct.

    Particulars state: "The driver of the vehicle XXXXXX incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/XX/XX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXX. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £XX pursuit to S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 7th Oct 17, 6:48 PM
    • 2,106 Posts
    • 6,001 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #8
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:48 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:48 PM
    A follow up question: would the promissory estoppel angle still be applicable if the vehicle wasn't parked in a commercial bay? The car park is gated and only authorised users can access it. The signage only has two terms of parking:

    - Permits must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times
    - No parking outside of a designated area / parking bay

    The court papers don't specify which T&Cs have been allegedly broken, but their documentation only states "parking without permit". In essence, I entered the car park knowing I didn't require a permit to park, parked in good faith, but received a PCN for failure to display a permit.
    Originally posted by geordiebill
    The promissory estoppel point only applies to commercial bays, if that is what the letter from the management company says.

    But if the signage at the entrance is in the name of a different parking operator, that introduces an element of uncertainty as to who the driver is contracting with. Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, or alternatively Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the consumer.

    Then you have the point that only authorised users can access the car park, which you must have been, otherwise you couldn't have got in there in the first place. A similar case I was involved in, was decided in favour of the motorist, details here: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/ukpc-lose-claim-employee-entitled-to.html
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 7th Oct 17, 6:58 PM
    • 7,640 Posts
    • 7,712 Thanks
    pogofish
    • #9
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:58 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Oct 17, 6:58 PM

    Would you be able to answer me a quick question via PM please?
    Originally posted by geordiebill
    Soliciting contact off-board is not on. Also, it's a clear breach of the T&Cs you agreed to on signup.

    Be aware that certain posters here have been singled out for harassment by PPCs and their stooges, so it's better that all posts are kept out there where they can be seen/monitored

    If anyone now does Pm you with "advice", you need to be very careful - only respond to Forum regulars with thousands of posts to their names as PPCs do trawl this board to try and identity and put one-over on their victims.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 7th Oct 17, 7:19 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    geordiebill
    Soliciting contact off-board is not on. Also, it's a clear breach of the T&Cs you agreed to on signup.

    Be aware that certain posters here have been singled out for harassment by PPCs and their stooges, so it's better that all posts are kept out there where they can be seen/monitored

    If anyone now does Pm you with "advice", you need to be very careful - only respond to Forum regulars with thousands of posts to their names as PPCs do trawl this board to try and identity and put one-over on their victims.
    Originally posted by pogofish
    Huge apologies to all. Newbie error! I was simply trying to be cautious precisely because I know he PPCs lurk. I've had a bit more time to look around the site this afternoon and am up to speed on etiquette. Duly noted re advice!

    Again, thank you again to all who've taken the time to steer me in the right direction, it's really appreciated.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 7th Oct 17, 7:47 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    geordiebill
    The promissory estoppel point only applies to commercial bays, if that is what the letter from the management company says.

    But if the signage at the entrance is in the name of a different parking operator, that introduces an element of uncertainty as to who the driver is contracting with. Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, or alternatively Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the consumer.

    Then you have the point that only authorised users can access the car park, which you must have been, otherwise you couldn't have got in there in the first place. A similar case I was involved in, was decided in favour of the motorist, details here:
    Originally posted by bargepole
    Thanks. Would the wording of the signs assist with the issue of authorised users? In full:

    PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Enforcement in operation 24hrs. Unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice. The following restrictions apply.

    Permits must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times. No parking outside of a designated area/parking bay.

    Terms of Parking Without Permission

    You do so at your own risk to property and personal injury and you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge fee.

    The Following Fees Apply

    Parking Charge Notice.........£100 Per Day
    or the reduced sum of £60 if payment is made within 14 days.

    Registered Keeper details may be requested from DVLA. You will incur additional charges resulting from further action being taken against you if the fee remains unpaid.

    (Incidentally, the signs show BPA membership, but they weren't members at the time. They were members of IPC)
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 7th Oct 17, 10:20 PM
    • 2,106 Posts
    • 6,001 Thanks
    bargepole
    There's so much wrong with the wording of that sign.

    Unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice
    Unauthorised parking? If you have access to the key or code for the gate, you are, by definition authorised.

    May Result? In what circumstances?

    Your vehicle receiving a notice? How can a vehicle pay an invoice?

    Parking without Permission? If you don't have permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract. It could only be a trespass, and only the landowner could sue for that, and only for a nominal sum.

    Additional charges? How much are those, then?

    The whole thing is complete nonsense, and on that wording is incapable of binding anyone to its purported contractual terms. Void for uncertainty of terms is the legal description.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 8th Oct 17, 9:48 AM
    • 7,155 Posts
    • 6,204 Thanks
    The Deep
    Unauthorised parking? If you have access to the key or code for the gate, you are, by definition authorised.

    Not necessarily, I own a flat in a block where several ex tenants have kept their keys and still park without authority.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 8th Oct 17, 10:15 AM
    • 2,106 Posts
    • 6,001 Thanks
    bargepole
    Unauthorised parking? If you have access to the key or code for the gate, you are, by definition authorised.

    Not necessarily, I own a flat in a block where several ex tenants have kept their keys and still park without authority.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    OK, if we're going to be that pedantic:

    If you have the keys or access code, and are a current employee (or tenant), you are, by definition, authorised.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 10th Oct 17, 9:20 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    geordiebill
    Thanks again for the above!

    Another detail I've noticed (and I'm wondering if this is significant):

    The date on the particulars of claim is not the date that the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was parked on Day 1, the PCN was issued (via post) on Day 8. It states the vehicle was parked on Day 1, but the particulars of claim say:

    "The driver of the vehicle...incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/XX/XX (Day 8) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXXX."

    The particulars of claim do not cite the date of the alleged contractual breach i.e. Day 1.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 18th Oct 17, 9:04 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    geordiebill
    Morning folks. Apologies for bumping the thread, but I could really use a pointer. As per the post directly above, the wrong date is on the particulars of claim and there's no detail about what the alleged breach of contract was. On the date they've listed, I wasn't at work as it was a Bank Holiday (with an invoice as evidence). So, do I...

    1. Initially concentrate solely on the date and put them to proof that I was in the car park on the day in question and initially set aside the rest -

    OR

    2. Defend based on the stuff listed above in previous posts - signs, contract etc.

    I've had a look through other posts on the site concerning the wrong date and have seen there's a line of attack, but would that initially exclude all the other stuff? I don't want to give them a free pass on the date. Is there perhaps a third way?

    Thanks - GB
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Oct 17, 11:16 PM
    • 50,604 Posts
    • 63,997 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Include all of it. Both.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

449Posts Today

4,725Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @WhiskyOneIce: @MartinSLewis Changed my fuel from Britush Gas to Sainsburies yesterday via MSE site and saved £230 odd PA...Thanks ????????

  • RT @rbp77: @MartinSLewis Interesting that Facebook facial recognition tech can't be put to use in recognising misuse of people's image in i?

  • And yesterday Facebook put a quote out saying all the SCAM adverts with me in had been dealt with. Balderdash!? https://t.co/OrvsWKIJfJ

  • Follow Martin