Looks like I am going to court with Gladstones.

onearmbandit

Thank you once again for the help.

Redx - I had never even considered private parking fines when this happened - so emailed them within 1 hour of receiving the PCN challenging it. I did not remain in 'keeper' mode. But the reply from the letter before claim clearly says they are pursuing me as I didn't give them an alternative name. I will be honest - I am still confused about this 'keeper' mode!

Coupon-mad: Thanks mate. Yes - I gathered grace periods and observation periods where not a line of argument for me in this case although they were DEFINITELY acting in a predatory manner. There was no where for them to be yet within 5 mins had seen my car slapped a PCN on it then scarpered. They were lying in wait!

I will look into photobucket so I can post the letters I have received thus far.

onearmbandit

May I ask

Does anyone think that the signage constitutes a contract?

Here it is again:

" WARNING
PRIVATE LAND - CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
Parking in this area is permitted for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit
By parking or remaining on this site other than in accordance with the above, you, the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms. You agree to pay consideration in the form of a 'parking charge' in the sum to be paid of £100 to be paid within 28 days of issue. This is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days"


Look at the wording - they were not actually offering me anything.

Also - because the PCN does not state the 'period' is this in breach of POFA?

They also refused to show me the contract between link parking & the land owner - are they now in breach of CPR 31.2 and 31.14??

Thanks again!

onearmbandit

The Deep:
When you say unreasonable behaviour - do you mean because they refused to show me the contract between link parking and the landowner as per CPR?? Cheers

The_Deep

Unreasonable behaviour can be many things, failure to answer relevant questions, cancelling a court case at the last moment, providing witness statements the length of war and peace, adding inlawful charges, lying to the court, adding excessive charges, failing to mitigate in leaving site cases, trespassing on your land, (own space), quoting inappropriate cases, (Beavis E v L), trying to drop dociments on you in court, telephoning you.

It can be what you want it to be, but you have to convince a judge that it is.

Coupon-mad

onearmbandit wrote: »

May I ask

Does anyone think that the signage constitutes a contract?

Here it is again:

" WARNING
PRIVATE LAND - CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
Parking in this area is permitted for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit
By parking or remaining on this site other than in accordance with the above, you, the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms. You agree to pay consideration in the form of a 'parking charge' in the sum to be paid of £100 to be paid within 28 days of issue. This is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days"


Look at the wording - they were not actually offering me anything.

It is worth arguing and defences using that point can be found by searching 'forbidding defence' as suggested keywords.

Also - because the PCN does not state the 'period' is this in breach of POFA?

Debateable. Bargepole won one case by arguing that! Never heard of any others, but worth including in a defence, why not?

They also refused to show me the contract between link parking & the land owner - are they now in breach of CPR 31.2 and 31.14??

Probably not, because documents like that can be held until the evidence for the hearing.

Carthesis

You presumably ought to include part about failure to mitigate losses too.

If they guy has managed to slap on a windscreen ticket inside 5 minutes, then he's obviously been waiting for someone to park up and vanish for the briefest period to ticket them.

Hence, if he's an on-site attendant, then he could have easily called out to the driver to say "Do you have a permit? You can't park here and walk off-site!" etc. etc.

As for the failure to show the times - it isn't a POFA breach I don't think, but it *IS* a Code of Practice breach at the very least.

Also you need to check that the information on the windscreen ticket matches exactly that on the NtK. If it doesn't, then that invalidates the ticket under POFA, hence RK Liability cannot apply.

onearmbandit

Coupon Mad - I hope forbidding contracts is applicable in this case as it is the fulcrum of my argument my friend! I do not think I have much more backing my case if it doesn't??

I do believe there was no entrance signage and in accordance with the Code of Practice (BPA), if there isn't one then no contract can be made - this is my understanding thus far?

In terms of grace periods, observation periods - maybe they do not technically apply. However, I was there 5 mins - how was that sufficient time to read & agree to a contract? I was lost - I left the site as soon as I got out the car to find someone for directions - these !!!!!!s had my car stickered within minutes - they did not give me time to agree anything. They had to have got to my car so quickly then scarppered with the specific intent of entrapping me - I do not see their behaviour in any other way. Yes, not a solid argument I know but I will use it as it is true. That is unreasonable behaviour on their part surely mate?

Also - in accordance with practice directions on pre-action conduct - this requires both parties to narrow the issues (3c), which is impossible unless they give me the information I have asked for (3a). So that tells me they are being a barrier to the process by refusing to show me requested documents before we get to court??

They have never sent me a picture of the car - in response to their LBC response, I will request this is done. Do they have to provide this??

They have not stated a period which again, is unreasonable behaviour.

In view of all of that - do you think I have a case here?

If I am missing a trick, please let me know - is there anything else I should be considering in this case?

Thankyou.

Carthesis - yes, I will post up the PCN, NOK and LBC in a few days - as far as I can see they all comply save for the lack of 'period' given. But if anyone with more experianced eyes can spot something they ahve missed I would be most grateful my friend.

The Deep: Thank you for that explanation. I though you may have spotted something specific that they had done that was unreasonable. As I say - I think they were unreasonable from the get go.

Thankyou to all of you, I will learn as much as I can (although I am finding it all difficult and trying to understand all the information posted and how it applies to me) - and I hope the info on this thread and all that I learn can be used to help others as I have been helped by all of you.

Cheers.

salmosalaris

your argument is that for there to be a contract with the driver there must be an offer , consideration and acceptance .
In this situation there is no genuine offer , in truth the vehicle is refused permission to park , there can hence be no contract with the driver . Any claim should be for trespass and only the landowner can bring this

Be aware though in CC judges can make things up as they go along and decide the case on the perceived rights and wrongs of it .

If you lose ask for leave to appeal on this point .

That sign could easily be made enforceable but would introduce the VAT issue
If there was a genuine offer of parking to non permit holders the charge would be subject to VAT and I presume there is no mention of it on the invoice ?

Carthesis

I've just re-read this bit:

4) State whether you are claiming keeper liability exists. It is believed that link parking has not met or chosen not to invoke the Keeper liability provisions of POFA2012 and therefore there is no possible cause of action against the vehicles keeper. POFA Sched 4 para 8 or 9 both require this...

Response: You are being pursued as the driver of the vehicle as you have failed to discharge liability or suggest otherwise

On what basis are the pursuing you as the driver?

It's not up to you to discharge liability or suggest otherwise - it's up to *THEM* to successfully demonstrate liability transfer to the RK (which they state they are not doing) or prove that you are the driver (which presumably they can't, unless you've told them otherwise at any point).

When you emailed Link Parking, did you say "*I* am willing to cover your lost cost..." which could be implying you were the driver, or what?

Coupon-mad

Response: You are being pursued as the driver of the vehicle as you have failed to discharge liability or suggest otherwise

And that is not allowed on private land, the law protects keepers. It's either (a) use the POFA or (b) proof of who was driving, NO assumptions allowed. That can be fully rebutted by citing Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper liability'.

Have a read of Lamilad's thread about his court case v Excel, that poster won by showing the Judge a printout of Schedule 4 and Henry Greenslade's words (a barrister & the POPLA Lead Adjudicator - a private parking expert). He states in it that there is NO lawful 'presumption' that a keeper was the driver.

See the Parking Prankster's blog 'Mr Pickup's fun day out' for the case report! Also that gives you the claim number to cite, (Excel v Mr L, 17.11.16).