UKPC County Court Claim

Sam84

But in the last hearing the Judge concluded that there was an offer via the signs to park only in marked bays and not on lines...therefore parking on lines was accepting the offer?

Coupon-mad

Sam84 wrote: »

But in the last hearing the Judge concluded that there was an offer via the signs to park only in marked bays and not on lines...therefore parking on lines was accepting the offer?

Sounds like perverse reasoning.

Sam84 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I think I can see how this will go...

The Judge will say "yes I agree that there is no proof of contract between landowner and UKPC, and no proof of contract between landowner and managing agent, but that is a code of practice and not law!"

Oh well it is worth a go.

Ah but the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye v Beavis can be quoted - they said the BPA CoP was 'effectively regulation' without full compliance a PPC could not get DVLA data because the KADOE contract insists on CoP compliance (print out the private parking KADOE contract with the DVLA, as proof of this. It should be able to be Googled).

I am amazed that a Judge thought UKPC signs - where the £100 is hidden in VERY small print and not transparent or prominent at all - were clear and 'bound to be seen' never mind the niceties of what it says.

Has the defendant got printed out:

(a) a picture of the Beavis sign by comparison (to show what a concise & large lettering sign looks like) and

(b) a picture of a Combined Parking Solutions sign (to show what an offer to park in a place that would normally be prohibited looks like)?

Sam84

Thanks that's brilliant, I have printed the signs off for them,

Only thing I can not find is where the in the Beavis case it states the BPA CoP was 'effectively regulation' without full compliance a PPC could not get DVLA data because the KADOE contract insists on CoP compliance

Umkomaas

Sam84 wrote: »

Thanks that's brilliant, I have printed the signs off for them,

Only thing I can not find is where the in the Beavis case it states the BPA CoP was 'effectively regulation' without full compliance a PPC could not get DVLA data because the KADOE contract insists on CoP compliance

See link below - para 111 on pages 48//49.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

HTH

Sam84

Well another loss I am afraid, UKPC won the judgement...apparently the contract can be with the management company or the landowner.

Thanks everyone for all of your help

System

Did they get the full amount £100 plus the £60 for each ticket?

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Did they get the full amount £100 plus the £60 for each ticket?

If they did, I despair about the Judge.

System

This is a very odd thread though. A NoD that was withdrawn!