Motorbike Flash Park Ticket.

nickham

3) Inappropriate/lack of signage - no contract with driver

The alleged breach took place in a drive way outside Sainsbury’s Kew Bridge. Having subsequently visited the site, the one and only sign to the carpark is barely noticeable as it is not only small but within shrubs and greenery. Indeed the text is so small as to render the sign unreadable and unremarkable. The sign is is insufficiently eyecatching to give one cause to revisit after parking. I believe Flash Park have done this quite deliberately so as to have the claim afterwards that signage is provided, but in the full knowledge all the while that it is highly unlikely that its message will be recognised or noted by drivers.

I require Flash Park to prove beyond any doubt that there was a suitable sign, meeting the requirements of the law, within the clear line of sight of the driver on the driver’s walking route from the exact position of the parked motorcycle and the entrance that the driver used to the shop on that day.

A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle can not have seen any clear, unambiguous sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. In their rejection of my appeal, Flash Park assert that I was the driver (when no such information has been passed to Flash Park) that by merely entering the carpark “I “ agreed to the terms and conditions. This is an utter nonsense, requiring a driver, even one with full faculty and cognition, to have agreed to terms and conditions upon entry and before having become aware of signage or read and understood the terms and conditions.

nickham

I'm trying to get a time of when I made a purchase at Sainsbury's... If I do and it's within 10 minutes then I will add grace period section too....

What do you think? and any ideas of other sections i can add?

Cheers

Fruitcake

nickham wrote: »

Hi everyone again... I'm trying to plow through my draft between my busy schedule.... I have done this so far.... next bit to follow

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor proportionate or commercially justifiable.

The motorcycle was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident. Additionally Flash Park’s 3 digital photographs of the motorcycle in situ demonstrate vacant space nearby and around me so no denial of revenue can be claimed.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

Flash Park’s charges are outrageously disproportionate, indeed punitive in nature and intent. Moreover the charges are entirely unjustifiable from a commercial perspective, other than merely to charge as much money as they think they can get away with.

That looks like an old pre-Beavis appeal. If you intend to use not a GPEOL you have to demonstrate how your situation differs from the Beavis Supreme Court decision.

Fruitcake

nickham wrote: »

Next Bit:

4) Lack of standing/authority from landowner

Flash Park has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Flash Park to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Smart Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park (the local council do) and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Flash Park are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Flash Park to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this outrageous sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

This isn't a Not-so-Smart Parking case.

Coupon-mad

Yep, do not use 'no loss'.

This photo is good to embed in your 'unclear signs' paragraph as it shows there are no signs/lines there:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1g2jq8&s=9#.VwP-_aQrLIU

'No grace period' is valid and is not dependent upon the time of the Sainsburys receipt. It's more about the observation time on the PCN, if only minutes.

HTH

nickham

Do you mean i need to write something in my own words then?

nickham

so I can't use no grace period?

nickham

also the clear signage one, is that ok?

Coupon-mad

nickham wrote: »

Do you mean i need to write something in my own words then?

No. Didn't say that, not from scratch. Just scrap 'no GPEOL because it has no legs as an appeal argument any more.

so I can't use no grace period?

What? I said:

'No grace period' is valid...

You certainly need that and the unclear signage which we've been discussing already - and no landowner authority but add in a quote from the BPA CoP like here (posts 3 and 4 can be used and adapted by you, yep by re-writing them to suit):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70461877#Comment_70461877

HTH

nickham

Hi everyone, I was just on the Popla website and I entered my Popla V Code and it said it was invalid. What do I need to do?