Letter before claim

Kind_Of_Irritated

P.S. to coupon-mad. Sorry, I missed this.

And does it OFFER parking to people parking with no permit? Or disallow it?

On the back of the permit it doesn't offer parking to people with no permit. I can write it all the words on the back of the permit if that'll help.

On the front of permit it says:

PARKING PERMIT

Link Parking Ltd

VEHICLE NO: (I have written my reg number in here)

VALID TO: (Nothing has been written in here, by them or by me)

LOCATION:

NO: (Nothing is written in here)

Kind_Of_Irritated

To coupon-mad. Ah! True. I'll upload the pics and do as you suggest. Many many thanks for this.

Coupon-mad

I meant do the signs offer or prohibit?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Uploaded it to TinyPic. Is this OK?

Kind_Of_Irritated

The signs prohibit. They don't "offer"

Coupon-mad

Look how small the £100 is, hidden in the very smallest font. Contrary to the 'transparency' requirement of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

No consideration flows from the parking firm to drivers not displaying a permit.

A parking licence is offered only for those drivers who display a permit and park in a bay.

All others are trespassers, not licensed to park and it is a nonsense (confirmed in the Beavis case decision as unrecoverable) for a third party parking firm not in possession, to pluck a 'contractual charge' out of thin air in lieu of the landowner's right under the tort of trespass, to claim nominal damages only. That offends the penalty rule and is not like the 'agreed' charge offered by prominent signage in Beavis.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Look how small the £100 is, hidden in the smallest font.

Thank you for your expert opinion, coupon-mad. So what you are saying here is that their notice does not cover people who do not display a permit?

No consideration flows from the parking firm to drivers not displaying a permit.

And does this mean that since I was NOT displaying my permit their notice's content CANNOT and does not apply to me? Is that correct?

A parking licence is offered only for those drivers who display a permit and park in a bay.

So I would be considered a trespasser and therefore not covered under any "contract" made by my actually possessing an unseen permit?

All others are trespassers, not licensed to park and it is a nonsense (confirmed in the Beavis case decision) for a third party parking firm not in possession, to pluck a 'contractual charge' out of thin air in lieu of the landowner's right under the tort of trespass, to claim nominal damages only.

Coupon-mad

Yes, the ParkingEye v Beavis case assists because the Supreme Court found:

‘’ But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.’’

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thank you very much for this. So, coupon-mad, do you know if there is a sample response anywhere in the forums that I could select from to form my own particular response?

Also, do you think this Beavis case precedent is my strongest arm?

Coupon-mad

I think the sign wording plus the Beavis case can be used in any defence, but remember that Mr Beavis lost at the Supreme Court! That case can of course be twisted by any PPC to try to make a Judge think the decision is a 'silver bullet' to kill off any poor hapless driver's defence re any parking charge. So you need to be very familiar with what was really said by the Judges (which was very specific to that car park, those signs at a specific location and the commercial justification of the charge) and how your case differs, due to there being no offer or consideration from the parking firm, therefore no parking licence to breach (unlike the Beavis case).

It can be argued by you that, in the absence of a genuine offer and consideration this is merely a penalty dressed up as a contractual 'charge'. At best the parking event was a matter of trespass with zero 'agreement' on any charge because it's so small as to be illegible on the outdoor signs. Also the £100 was not stated in the permit contractual bumf from the landowner's managing agents.

Here's a basis of a LBCCC response, written by Mystery1 on Legal Beagles:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?83973-Gladstones-LBA-Letter


HTH