CC claim form athens security help please!

roogoose

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You should be also contesting the figure made up out of thin air for the £153.45 sum, which includes yet another £50 which cannot be pursued (not just the legal costs of £50).

I can't see a point that the sum of the parking charge itself is not clearly displayed in large lettering on the signs and/or at the P&D machine on the tariff board, so the driver was not given 'adequate notice' of the £100 charge, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to the POFA schedule 4. Compared with the signs in the Beavis case, the £100 was a hidden term and therefore unrecoverable. The driver was unaware of any risk of paying any sum at all except the advertised tariffs in large letters, which was paid in good faith.

I can't see a point that the operator failed to allow reasonable grace periods as per the IPC CoP, allowing time before paying, to arrive, park, get kids out, lock the car, go over and read the signs, such as they were, and pay a tariff. Plus another grace period after expiry of paid-for time.

Was the 22 mins all AFTER expiry?

1. How would I word the contesting of the extra £50?

2. The £100 parking charge is displayed in large letters on the sign for "not displaying a valid ticket" so I don't feel as though I can contest this. Obviously different people have different opinions of what large letters, are, but considering you have to stand at the pay and display machine to get your ticket and the sign is write next to it, i think it would be hard to argue the letters are too small.

3. The 22 mins was after expiry. Can I argue a grace period based on this?

THank you for all your help!

pugger

AS use the contractual agreement model as opposed to breach; could they still argue Beavis?

Coupon-mad

pugger wrote: »

AS use the contractual agreement model as opposed to breach; could they still argue Beavis?

Not really, it should be irrelevant to a true contractual charge but I doubt this £100 is listed as a tariff. And at a hearing they'll try to argue both, whatever works with the Judge...

How would I word the contesting of the extra £50?

Like the example I linked where it talks about a figure made up out of thin air (hat tip to bargepole for that wording!). Read other defences as well, not just the one I linked. Search the forum for 'defence true' which should find a number of recent ones to crib the best bits from.

2. The £100 parking charge is displayed in large letters on the sign for "not displaying a valid ticket" so I don't feel as though I can contest this. Obviously different people have different opinions of what large letters, are, but considering you have to stand at the pay and display machine to get your ticket and the sign is write next to it, i think it would be hard to argue the letters are too small.

OK but I would still argue it, partly because there is no way their signs are as clear as those in the Beavis case, shown here (very concise compared to the wordiness we normally see):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

Also you've said it warns of £100 charge for failure to display a valid ticket. But you did display a valid ticket. So where does the sign clearly tell people how much grace they have to leave and that £100 can apply to undefined 'overstays'? You must attack the signs in some way, IMHO you need to show there was no 'agreement on the charge' of £100 for taking a few extra minutes to load, pack up and leave. Loading and leaving isn't parking, you could argue.

You could also query the synchronisation of the ANPR cameras & clocks...you doubt the car overstayed for more than a few minutes and as registered keeper you have never seen any evidence to show the allegation is true and supported by a reliable, synchronised system which takes the photos WITHIN the car park, rather than showing the car outside the boundary (which means nothing).

Or was it a windscreen PCN, am I misunderstanding the PCN?

Ivor_Pecheque

I suspect a sea change soon.

Interesting relationship between Perranzabuloe Parish Council and Private Parking Companies, in Perranporth.

Let's hope a change is imminent.

They don't seem to have much support locally.... check out Dan Bagnalls post https://www.facebook.com/groups/235733413124999/

Umkomaas

Dan Bagnall seems to have the hang of this, as does Ian Knight on a skim read. But most kudos to you Ivor Ladscapeman for your resilience in fighting this scourge.

I have to admit that I haven't been to Perranporth since the mid-70s, but I remember it as a beautiful, busy, yet welcoming town. 40 years on, I have absolutely no inclination to renew my acquaintance with it, given the parking land mines in place. Pity.

And I bet there are many now giving it as wide a berth as downtown Aleppo!

HO87

Do we have a sample of the sign showing all the wording?

System

Interesting relationship between Perranzabuloe Parish Council and Private Parking Companies, in Perranporth.

Councillor Lawrence sits on the Garden Charities board as well as the Parish Council. You should start there and see if there is a conflict of interest.

Ivor_Pecheque

Register of interests reveals the relationship between another Counsillor and the Chrities trust. She's married to a Trustee, and her daughter is employed by them.

Umkomaas

@Ivor. There's a poster over on PePiPoo who is asking about photos of signage at Fistral Beach. I wonder if you're able to help him?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108150&st=0&gopid=1206805&#entry1206805

roogoose

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Also you've said it warns of £100 charge for failure to display a valid ticket. But you did display a valid ticket. So where does the sign clearly tell people how much grace they have to leave and that £100 can apply to undefined 'overstays'? You must attack the signs in some way, IMHO you need to show there was no 'agreement on the charge' of £100 for taking a few extra minutes to load, pack up and leave. Loading and leaving isn't parking, you could argue.

Or was it a windscreen PCN, am I misunderstanding the PCN?

Hi it was a windscreen PCN yes, (which unfortunately I no longer have).
I sense that if my ticket had expired it would not be deemed as "valid" by a judge - I would be happy to hear that I am wrong?
Is it plausible to argue that because the sign didn't specifically say that expired = invalid it was not a breach of contract?
I will post a copy of the sign in a moment.

Apologies for all the questions, I am just getting frustrated with the amount of time and energy I have put into this, and don't think I can face doing it again if it goes to court.
So if I/you guys feel that I don't have a case, I would rather (reluctantly) pay up than go though this all again and potentially lose.

Thanks so much for your help again!