UKCPS gibberish signs

bazster

Pranky has now blogged about UKCPS' useless signage, with the case he was involved in being a particularly egregious example of idiocy.

But, from what I've seen of examples posted on PePiPoo, UKCPS' signs are routinely fatally flawed.

If anyone involved in a disabled-space-without-a-blue-badge case (a UKCPS favourite) would like to PM me I'll happily explain (if I'm satisfied that you are genuine).

The_Deep

It is not gibberish, it is perfectly clear, only cars with properly displayed BBs may park, and then only in appropriately marked bays. All others are trespassing.

BB holders parked in unmarked pays are in breach of contract.

bazster

Take it up with the judge, "gibberish" was his word.

bod1467

Was that car park ONLY for BB holders? Or was it a normal car park including disabled bays?

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

It is not gibberish, it is perfectly clear, only cars with properly displayed BBs may park, and then only in appropriately marked bays. All others are trespassing.

BB holders parked in unmarked pays are in breach of contract.

Reasonable interpretation. However, this would seem to mean that any non-blue badge holders are able to use the car park. Or that the non-BB spaces are not for general public use (perhaps employees etc).

I don't have the necessary information about that car park to determine exactly who other than BBs could park there.

The judge must have had that information, though, to pass the comments that he did and award against the PPC.

bazster

I think TD's interpretation is exactly what the sign says. Obviously not what the goons at UKCPS intended it to say, but that's their problem!

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

It is not gibberish, it is perfectly clear, only cars with properly displayed BBs may park, and then only in appropriately marked bays. All others are trespassing.

BB holders parked in unmarked pays are in breach of contract.

What are VEHILCES?

What is a WINSCREEN.

I would have thought that with your attention to such detail TD, these would not have escaped your eagle eye.

The inclusion of such nonsense is an integral part of a sign that UKCPS contends is a contractually binding agreement? I think I tend to side with the Judge

The_Deep

Nothing escapes my eagle eye. I assumed that the company intended to say "vehicle" and "windscreen"

I also assumed that reasonability applied. A minor typo in a legal agreement is very rarely a game changer

Coupon-mad

But the Judge thought otherwise, as did lots of Judges in parking cases, such as the ones where they talk about full stops and 'failure to comply with THIS' (PE v Lemon, PE v Harris, PE v Clarke, PE v Jones, PE v Collins-Daniel, and PE v Thomas for example, and UKCPS v Gaskell tore into this sort of signage as well)

List of PPC Court Cases won by defendants (non-exhaustive) (clicky link)