'Forbidding' sign, Euro Parking Services

6bubbs

Hi, I've received a parking charge notice for inadvertently parking in an area reserved for permit holders.

I have seen some examples of signage which is clearly 'forbidding' (i.e. it does not establish a contract with the trespasser). The signage in my case is less clear, and despite looking into this for hours and hours I cannot tell whether I should challenge it or simply pay up. I was really hoping that someone would have a view as to whether the signage is forbidding, or whether it may be enough to establish a contract with me.

Sadly I don't think I'm permitted to post a picture of the sign so I will describe it as best I can.

The sign states:
"Warning, private car park. Parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit. Terms and conditions apply". After setting out those conditions (parking within a marked space, no obstructive parking etc.), the sign then states:
"By parking at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms: you agree to pay a parking charge of £100, to be paid within etc. etc".

It seems that the signage doesn't prohibit parking without a permit and this suggests I may have to pay, but I have seen some argue that it nevertheless is unenforceable.

Apologies for the length of the post. I hope someone can help me decide whether to fight or give in! Thank you so much in advance.

forgotmyname

Upload the picture to tinypic.com or similar and post the URL without the http and without the www.

so just tinypic.com/your link forum members will be able to see it if they look properly.

Coupon-mad

No-one is going to tell you to give in to this scam. No-one here will tell you to pay.

6bubbs

Hi, thanks for this. The signage can be viewed using this link:

i66.tinypic.com/2wd3kok.jpg[/IMG]

Apologies, I'm not being lazy. I did spend several hours indeed yesterday looking through previous posts/advice but couldn't find anything similar to the signage in my case unfortunately, certainly nothing comparable enough to be at all conclusive. Mine permits parking for permit holders, rather than expressly forbidding parking (as with most other examples I have read up on). A subtle difference, but I cannot work out whether the signage in my case is forbidding or whether it does in fact amount to a contract to park for £100! Would really appreciate the views of anyone who has come across similar signage. Thanks

Quentin

No-one here will tell you to give in over this.


Read up the newbies faq thread and set about appealing this as advised there.

Coupon-mad

6bubbs wrote: »

Hi, thanks for this. The signage can be viewed using this link:

i66.tinypic.com/2wd3kok.jpg[/IMG]

Apologies, I'm not being lazy. I did spend several hours indeed yesterday looking through previous posts/advice but couldn't find anything similar to the signage in my case unfortunately, certainly nothing comparable enough to be at all conclusive.

Mine permits parking for permit holders, rather than expressly forbidding parking (as with most other examples I have read up on). A subtle difference, but I cannot work out whether the signage in my case is forbidding or whether it does in fact amount to a contract to park for £100! Would really appreciate the views of anyone who has come across similar signage. Thanks

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2wd3kok&s=9#.WKTYnvmLTIU

It is like this sort of sign, we've seen LOADS like this in permit car parks:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71682052#Comment_71682052

Yes, it's less cut & dried but IMHO it is worth arguing that signage which only 'permits' parking to certain drivers/cars, cannot be twisted to also be offering a contract to others. You could argue there is no consideration flowing, no offer made to permit parking without a permit, and you could use a Combined Parking Solutions sign as a comparison (they are easily Googled and show how such a contract *could* be worded as an offer).

Without a contract capable of agreement, the vehicle can only be held to be trespassing (which is denied) and the Beavis case Judges at the Supreme Court in 2015 confirmed that ParkingEye could not pursue a charge that was a penalty nor one that fell under the tort of trespass, as they were not in possession of the land.

Trespass remains a matter only for a landowner; a third party parking firm cannot twist a pseudo 'contract' - this is merely a penalty and unenforceable.

HO87

Based on what has been posted IMHO the sign would appear to be forbidding although a photograph of it would be useful as its difficult to gauge the relative prominence of the terms.

However, the wording very clearly establishes those who are authorised to park:

Parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit.

This could not be clearer and is completely unqualified. The remainder of the terms therefore appear to be addressed to the group of authorised vehicles but if no valid permit is displayed (which is required to be permitted to park) then the vehicle is not permitted to park and must therefore be unauthorised. If the vehicle is unauthorised then the paying of a parking charge notice doesn't provide permission - the terms do not offer to supply you with a permit - which is what is required to be authorised.

If you are unauthorised - i.e. the vehicle is not permitted to remain on the land (that is what this means) - you are a trespasser and it is a matter of trite law that you cannot be held to the terms of a contract such as is being offered here to trespass. It is a legal nonsense - as you can see above.

I could provide some examples of signs that would not be forbidding but why the hell should I do the PPC's job for them? Despite the fact that PPC's will go on at length about offering contracts to park it is always absolutely obvious where their concentration is and examples such as this demonstrate that those behind the design were only concerned with restriction rather than actually trying to be permissive. Some PPC's have succeeded in overcoming that mindset but I'm not going identify them here for obvious reasons.

There are recent examples at court where judges have kindly provided an analysis of signs such as the OP has encountered. These are not case law but provide potentially persuasive guidance to other small claims courts.

Loadsofchildren123

Have a look at the parking prankster's blog from April 2016 "PCM-UK signage does not create a contract".
The wording on that sign was very similar to yours and it was held that the offer was made to the permit holders, and not those without, and that the sign was therefore forbidding to those who parked without.
District Judge decisions are not binding authority, but they are "persuasive" authority, which means that you can rely on them but another DJ could ignore it and say he doesn't agree. But in practice they are more likely to go along with a fellow DJ than to disagree. The case is Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull and others (there were 3 cases heard together). You can get the transcript of the DJ's decision and his reasoning here:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj97NDjvpTSAhXhKsAKHWCQAe4QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbmpa.zendesk.com%2Fhc%2Fen-us%2Farticle_attachments%2F204374089%2FHigh_Wycombe_Three_Approved_Judgment.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHzzLYy4DMkXrCgDzHt7cESQpmvrQ

Loadsofchildren123

There is also a blog from prankster in may 2016 with another UK PC sign where the District Judge ruled the same thing, that the offer of parking was only made to permit holders and only permit holders could therefore be bound by any contract - UKPC v Mr M
Also see prankster's blog from November 2016, Horizon Parking v Guildford where the same issue was decided in the same way.


The more "persuasive" DJ decisions you can find, the more "persuasive" they are to another DJ who will not want to go against the herd.


Defending these claims is about putting in the hours to research. It's all there if you look, helpfully provided by people devoted to beating the PPCs. Not just on here and the Newbies thread, but Pepipoo, parking prankster, facebook and so on. There are no shortcuts, you need to read, read and read again - not just these threads, but the BPA/IPC codes of conduct, POFA, the case reports, and once you have you will start to enjoy the prospect of beating them at their own game.

6bubbs

Excellent advice, that is really helpful. Thank you all very much

Kind_Of_Irritated

Sorry to intervene here but I am putting my WS together (for submission by 2pm tomorrow) and still can't work out if (and how) the sign in my case is "forbidding".

It's here if anyone would like to take a peep.

http://i1347.photobucket.com/albums/p714/Zinqua1/20160913_153413%202_zpsd8lftcds.jpg


Thank you.