Parkingeye White Horse Rottingdean - failing to provide POPLA code

Coupon-mad

mitigating circumstances. Does anyone have any feedback on how the court might see this?

Not a good argument, not for more than a short overstay.

I'm also confused that they have managed to extort money from so many people on this particular site. If 100s of people have fallen foul of these signs, isn't that in itself, fairly compelling evidence that the signage is inadequate??? Is it perhaps worth me compiling a list of tripadvisor and social media comments and cases where others also haven't seen the sign? (one poor guy got done for waiting in his car for 15 mins!)

Yes you could include it as evidence but I agree this is your strongest defence:

Also, one of my strongest arguments that the signage is inadequate is that any normal, sensible person, when hoping to have a meal at the hotel and seeing that you could get FREE parking by entering your registration in a terminal in the hotel, would do it, wouldn't they? I didn't see it and therefore paid when I didn't need to. So perhaps one argument could be, I should have received the two hours free parking (they have my receipt from the pub) and paid for another two, totalling 4,

Just do NOT say ''so the ultimate landowner is not in any way out of pocket.'' NOTHING about ''no loss'' works really after the Beavis case. Don't use the word 'loss'.

PS. Coupon mad, could you send me the pic of the sign please?

Can do later, sorry I forgot before!

guydorrell

Thanks Coupon mad, got the email and have replied. Take your point about avoiding the word loss and why, however, surely worth pointing out that when you add up the 2 hours free I could have had (had I seen the sign) and the 2 hours that I'd paid for, it's 4 hours which would cover the lengty of time we were in the car par, isn't it?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can word it in a factual way like that, a perfectly reasonable logical argument. Just avoid slipping into 'so no loss was caused' which is a green light for PE to wave the Beavis case under a Judge's nose and gain ground. Avoid talking about 'no loss' and it does come together as a decent argument to show that there is no way a contract was agreed and it would be ludicrous to suggest it was.

Having said that, the last claim regarding this location that I know about, was discontinued a week before the hearing. Maybe there's something in the contract they don't want to show a Judge, or maybe they didn't fancy coming down to Brighton where the hearing was.

Who knows, but worth fighting anyway. Awful, pale and badly-positioned small print signage, proved by the pictures. And then there is the separate entrance at the front of the pub building (unsigned still, not sure?) and the fact so many people have fallen victim to a scam that very clearly no-one would if they were informed of the terms and were patrons, because they could claim a refund of part of their parking fee if only they knew.

So on the balance pf probabilities, a Judge may well agree that the terms were simply not seen. Hundreds of people do not know, so = no contract. Unlike the Beavis case. Different signs there, much clearer and apparently better placed to be read...