Gladstones CCC - UKCPM

AOneVS

I'm writing the defence as the RK. There's been no admission who the driver was. Does that make a difference? It's not possible for the parking company to infer who is a resident or a visitor. Or am I misunderstanding something?

AOneVS

What do you make of this, taken from the parking cowboys site:

"The signage might not be forbidding. For instance visitor parking might allow 2 free hours for visitors, and would therefore appear to be similar to the Beavis case. In this situation, whether the charge is enforceable would depend on the frequency, visibility and readability of the signage, and whether the charge is made plain to the motorist or hidden in the small print. the Beavis judgment provides guidance on this.
Lastly, the signage might not comply with information requirements laid down in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. This Act came in force after the Beavis case and as yet there is no case law available. However clause 13(1) of the act states that a contract is not binding on a consumer if the correct information is not provided."

Copy of the sign:


i64.tinypic.com/2z6tp35.jpg

Sign on entrance is different:
i64.tinypic.com/2lo3whx.jpg

The BPA have asked the parking company to change the signs as they are not BPA AOS.

AOneVS

Bit of fun for a Saturday night. According to the BMPA page on UK CPM they had close to 40000 tickets last year and only 10 cases in court. With those kind of odds, should I be buying a lottery ticket?

Coupon-mad

AOneVS wrote: »

I'm writing the defence as the RK. There's been no admission who the driver was. Does that make a difference? It's not possible for the parking company to infer who is a resident or a visitor. Or am I misunderstanding something?

You are the rk of this car and you are resident at the location the car is registered to and you've posted stuff here on a public forum that confirms those facts.

The covenant talks about:

''vehicles belonging to visitors''

I am only playing devil's advocate because the Judge might decide on the balance of probs who was driving, based on those facts because you haven't said you lent 'the car belonging to you' to a visitor.

It's not possible for the parking company to infer who is a resident or a visitor.

They will and it is possible and a Judge might agree.

I think your main defence is the lack of any signs about time limits at the visitors bays at the material time, if you can prove that and I certainly would not present that particular paragraph from your lease. Other paragraphs yes, not that one IMHO.

The BPA have asked the parking company to change the signs as they are not BPA AOS.

Good, do you have proof of that...even better evidence to debunk the signage.

The_Deep

You use a phone on this forum, nor a good idea.

AOneVS

The_Deep wrote: »

You use a phone on this forum, nor a good idea.

Worked out how to edit. Have to open in a new tab (in chrome).

As someone not used to dealing with how these companies operate, I'm not certain on the best way to play this. There's been a few cases recently with residents vs ppc referenced in the defence.

I can remove 5. for now, probably more suited to a counter claim.

Is there anything more that can be added to the defence? The more the merrier right?

Unfortunately no pictures of the signs (or lack of) at the time. I have photos of the area showing no sign from June, July and September.And google street view from 2011 (shows the same fence). And I'm trying to get information from the management company about what changes were made to the signs recently. A sign was added the visitors bay sometime in September (see previous post).

Looking closely at this sign you can clearly see the visitors section is just a sticker placed over the original sign wording.

Coupon-mad

I would remove #5 but the rest of your defence is sound and I do think the signs will be your main defence:

- that they are prohibitive and make no offer.

- that there was no time limit on the visitors bays at the material time - they have been altered since but still remain misleading in terms of telling people that the car park is managed by a BPA AOS member, when UKCPM are not. So there can be no overstay, regardless of who was driving.

- that the lease doesn't restrict parking in any bays to any ''time limit'', so attempting to introduce a new rule by stealth, on third party signs rather than the proper action of an agreed and fully accepted variation of the lease, is a case of derogation from grant. Saeed v Plustrade comes in here, as much as the Jopson case.

AOneVS

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good, do you have proof of that...even better evidence to debunk the signage.

I have an email chain between me and the BPA where they've stated this.

Thanks for all your help so far, it's been invaluable!

I'll revise the defense and repost sometime tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

Your case is really interesting, keep us informed.

You are someone who might feel you have grounds to sue the PPC and landowner after you win the case. You would have six years to do that if there has been data misuse, which IMHO could be argued, because the time of the PCN there was no time limit at all so there was no reasonable cause to obtain your data from the DVLA for the April NTK.

You could instead think about a counter-claim right now (it goes at the bottom of the defence statement and has to state clear particulars of claim, and you would have to pay a court fee of £25) if you want to push the whole matter to a definitive hearing - you v UKPC, who wins?!

AOneVS

Ok, so I've had a go at writing about the inadequate signage as this could be key to getting the case dismissed. This section will replace the existing 5):

5) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read. Further to this, no signage was present in the visitors parking bay at the time.

b) The sign fails because it clearly shows the BPA Approved Operator logo, when in fact the BPA have confirmed the claimant is not a BPA Approved Operator.

c) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

d) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established.
The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand
of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract
been properly displayed and accessible.