Parking Charge Notice - Calder Park, Wakefield - Help

Edna_Basher

With time being of the essence here are some points you could raise about the inadequacy of the signage and road markings at Calder Park - such that there could be no meeting of minds to form a binding contract. Crucially, drivers must focus on the road ahead as they drive rather than being distracted by considering the intricacies of illegible terms and conditions on a sign at the side of the road as they pass.

The Department for Transport (“DfT”) guidelines state that a road sign should contain no more than 6 words or directions, this being the number of words that can be scanned safely in 4 seconds (any more words would mean the driver's eyes would be off the road for too long). Reading time R is given as 2 + N/3 seconds, where N is the number of words or directions on the sign. 2 seconds are given for the eyes to settle on the sign and start reading.

Unless VCS have changed them in the last year, the main entrance signs to the estate contains 62 words (excluding the small print at the bottom of the sign and the text contained within the graphics on the sign). According to the DfT guidelines, it would take the driver 23 seconds to read these words (and even longer to read the small print). In a vehicle travelling at 30 mph, this is clearly impossible.

It is obvious that there can be no meeting of minds if the driver does not have time to read the sign, let alone have time to consider it, especially when their main focus must be on driving safely and not considering the intricacies of Contract Law.

The text on the signs was too small to have been registered by a driver approaching this location is 30 mph.

The main 'No Stopping' text is 11cm, the “Private Property” text is 6cm and the text of the other writing (including the disclosure of the £100 charge) is not more than 4cm.

The DfT eyesight standards for driving require a driver to be able to read an 8cm number plate at a distance of 20 metres. The road has a 30mph speed limit; a speed of 30mph equates to 13.4 metres per second.

The 4cm font becomes readable at 10 metres away, and the sign is passed just three quarters of a second later. According to DfT guidelines, two seconds are needed for 'settle time' before any words can be read. Allowing for a safe angle to view the sign from the roadway, even the largest “No Stopping” is only readable for less than 2 seconds. Therefore by the time the driver's eyes have settled, the sign has been passed without the driver being able to register any of the wording on the sign.

The signs did not clearly identify VCS as the contracting party
The name “Vehicle Control Services Ltd” only appears in the small print (3cm) at the bottom of the sign and would not have been seen by the driver. Consequently, the driver could not possibly have known that VCS was seeking to establish a contract with him / her. Furthermore, VCS is in breach of Companies Act Trading Disclosure Regulations; the signs provide details only of a P.O. Box address rather than the company’s Registered Office of 2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield, S9 1XE as required by the Regulations.

There is also the principle of contra proferentem to chuck in. Whilst VCS may have included the "Clearway - no stopping on the main carriageway" symbol on its signs, (unless they have been repainted) the roads are marked with double yellow lines which have a completely different meaning on the public highway - i.e. no waiting rather than no stopping.

You could also argue that given VCS's use of road symbols and markings most commonly found on the public highway, drivers could be entitled to reasonably presume that the roads at Calder Park were part of the public highway rather than private land (for a car travelling at 30 mph, the words "private property" would be visible to the driver only for 1.12 seconds).

The Department for Transport has a handy publication called "Know your Traffic Signs" which can be downloaded at:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdf


I hope this all makes sense - lots of hasty copying and pasting from an old VCS dispute.

shaftonred

Thanks for that, I have added this to my witness statement rather than a seperate skeleton statement purely down to time.








They have mentioned that they are no longer relying on Elliott v Loake..





Also mentioned that they don't rely on Schedule 4 of the POF 2012 therefore this point is irrelevant.... do I need to still add this?

They have added that my allegation that this can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis can be denied as i have failed to provide any evidence to support this.... i guess I need to read back through this but based on my case which are the main points to highlight and provide.


Finally I think I may have made a big mistake, hoping it won't effect the case but in my defence statement i made the comment that i was the registered keeper at the time and advised that I wasnt the driver (i was and I dont know why i put this!!!)

Coupon-mad

...asking if i would settle out of court of which I have declined.

Sounds good, that normally heralds them discontinuing....shortly before the hearing.

Also mentioned that they don't rely on Schedule 4 of the POF 2012 therefore this point is irrelevant.... do I need to still add this?

Not if you are defending it as admitted driver, now. I think it sounds like you are best defending it as the driver, as you have points about 'no contract' and can talk about the lack of visible signs, honestly.

They have added that my allegation that this can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis can be denied as i have failed to provide any evidence to support this.... i guess I need to read back through this but based on my case which are the main points to highlight and provide.

Finally I think I may have made a big mistake, hoping it won't effect the case but in my defence statement I made the comment that I was the registered keeper at the time and advised that I wasn't the driver.

Ignore that and continue in 'honest mode' in your WS. Appear at the hearing as the driver.

shaftonred

Is there a link for the road signs for the DFT, been searching various sites for 20 mins trying to find one that I can add to my WS.

Also can I attach just a single page from the IPC code of conduct and reference it or does it have to be the entire document?

shaftonred

I have also been looking at each of the letters received from BW Legal and the wording around the CCJ has changed in pratically every letter.

Should i include the following statement which was included in one of their letters as coming across as misleading or intimidating as it "may" have been the outcome and their wording on "which is likely" would lead someone to worry that this will happen given that they are a legal firm?

"If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you (which is likely), then a CCJ will be recorded on your credit file for 6 years unless you satisfy the CCJ in full within a month of the CCJ being entered. A CCJ on your credit file may affect your ability to obtain future credit and may effect your employability"

Coupon-mad

shaftonred wrote: »

Is there a link for the road signs for the DFT, been searching various sites for 20 mins trying to find one that I can add to my WS.

The TSRGD - Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016-2018.

Also can I attach just a single page from the IPC code of conduct and reference it or does it have to be the entire document?

You can attach just one page. Take the full version with you to court on the day in case the Judge asks for it (that is, if this is not discontinued, as predicted).

I would attach your costs schedule* with this WS and evidence as well, as it seems like they will discontinue and you may as well file and serve it now, nice and early. Gives you a chance to write and ask the Judge for your costs/£19 per hour at the LiP rate, next week, as a follow-on, should the Claimant unreasonably discontinue late.

All of your WS, evidence, photos, attachments and costs schedule should be on numbered pages with a contents page, and put in a nice organised file or cheap ring binder, taken in person to the court in the morning, before 12 noon, in case their post box shuts early on Fridays and the clerks might refuse to take it late.

Same stuff to BW Legal by email.


* as ever, examples in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

shaftonred

Thanks Coupon Mad as always.... finally whats your thoughts on the later thread on CCJ and their various uses of it in their letters.... pursue or ignore?


Thats me then done until the 13th possibly!! Will keep you posted.

Coupon-mad

whats your thoughts on the later thread on CCJ and their various uses of it in their letters.... pursue or ignore?

Which later thread?

shaftonred

This one..


I have also been looking at each of the letters received from BW Legal and the wording around the CCJ has changed in pratically every letter.

Should i include the following statement which was included in one of their letters as coming across as misleading or intimidating as it "may" have been the outcome and their wording on "which is likely" would lead someone to worry that this will happen given that they are a legal firm?

"If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you (which is likely), then a CCJ will be recorded on your credit file for 6 years unless you satisfy the CCJ in full within a month of the CCJ being entered. A CCJ on your credit file may affect your ability to obtain future credit and may effect your employability"

Umkomaas

That's a 'post', not a 'thread'.