PCM UK spanked in court - Parking Prankster

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I guess we rarely see such a forbidding sign as that one, which offers no contract to anyone at all. I can only think of the no stopping sign allegations used by VCS and also Park Direct in their mobile phone 'look we still act like clampers, sneaking out to 'charge' people doing a U turn, in 30 seconds flat' scam at Uxbridge.

But we can now use these three case numbers when people respond to certain PCNs where they are alleged to be unauthorised and certainly for residents in 'own space' cases. That and UKPC v Davy, as catfunt rightly says.

I don't think that these cases provide any aid for residents in 'own space' cases. It involved cars parked on double yellow lines in a wide roadway where the signs read "‘No Parking At Any Time". The fact that they were residents' vehicles was irrelevant. With those signs no driver could have entered into a contract whether they were residents or not.

dazster

The point is not whether the signage offered a contract to anyone or no-one, the point is whether the signage offered a contract to the defendant. So "Permit Holders Only", for example, is obviously not offering a contract to a non-permit-holder; it is the same as saying to such a person "No Parking".

I think the reason this angle hasn't been hugely prominent hereabouts is that the ADR "services" (even the much-vaunted classic PoPLA) have been dismissing it out-of-hand. They (wrongly) make their decisions strictly on the basis of whether the motorist obeyed the signage and ignore any arguments about what the signage actually means (or not) in contractual terms.

Of course, they can now be challenged by reference to these cases.

The_Slithy_Tove

nigelbb wrote: »

I don't think that these cases provides any aid for residents in 'own space' cases.

No, but such "own space" cases have their own set of pretty strong legal arguments to confound any PPC, e.g. lease confers right to park, so no third party can offer a contract to do what you are already entitled to do, or no chain of authority from landholder (leasee)...

nigelbb

These cases highlight the nonsense of using contract law to try & impose parking regulations If a driver parks on private land & is not authorised by the landowner then it's trespass & there is a remedy for the landowner. There are however more effective proven methods of managing parking that do not involve the law e.g. bollards, barriers etc so there is no need to use a perversion of contract law or sue for trespass.

fisherjim

nigelbb wrote: »

I don't think that these cases provide any aid for residents in 'own space' cases. It involved cars parked on double yellow lines in a wide roadway where the signs read "‘No Parking At Any Time". The fact that they were residents' vehicles was irrelevant. With those signs no driver could have entered into a contract whether they were residents or not.

There are no "double yellow lines" on this estate.

The reason that a PPC is involved here is that the estate (which is still under contruction) roads have yet to be adopted, and the selling agents want to keep the estate looking uncluttered and pretty so they can sell the rest of the homes as quickly as possible. Some of which are going for £800,000.

Of courese once they have moved in many realise two cars are not catered for, any visitors and delivery firms are hounded by morons because their expensive properties are siting in a road with very little parking, and there's no where for a large vehicle to stop within the parking rules.

Grimble

Are we now to quote "in a landmark case" giving reference????????????

beamerguy

Grimble wrote: »

Are we now to quote "in a landmark case" giving reference????????????

Nice thought, wish that was the case but it is county court and no precedence has been set.

All depends on the judge and how they perceive cases.

Of course it can be used but no guarantee another judge will agree

HO87

beamerguy wrote: »

Nice thought, wish that was the case but it is county court and no precedence has been set.

All depends on the judge and how they perceive cases.

Of course it can be used but no guarantee another judge will agree

Indeed. No precedence but can certainly be presented as being persuasive. And its current.