Gladstones - CCJ letter advice please

Coupon-mad

I don't think that restaurant weak email saying 'we paid' helps your case at all, so I would remove mention of it from your defence.

Go more with the fact that they were required to make the new regime clear because people familiar with the area would not know things had changed if not drawn to their attention clearly. I would mention Lord Dening's 'red hand rule' (Google it, you will find it used a lot here too, if you search this forum for 'Denning red hand pointing').

The photo is good (no signs obvious or anywhere!) but that comes later on, with your WS:

http://i.imgur.com/8besDxl.jpg

HTH

levitron

Defense (draft #2)

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.

2. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking and Property Management. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

3. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

4. The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is
applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in a <non retail> where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant’s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking. At no point did the defendant enter into any contract with the third party.

5. The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were capable of being read and/or form a contract.
a) There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the parking area.
b) Signs are raised high up with small text which is difficult to read.
d) The amount of charge is non prominent in the wording on the signage.

The signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver and the notices do not provide the 'adequate notice' of the parking charge which is mandatory under Schedule 4 of the POFA.

6. The claimant has not properly followed the IPC code of practice regarding enforcement on new sites. The IPC code clearly states that Where there is any change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist you may place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required.

7. Furthermore in regards to the signage, when giving judgment in Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeals, Lord Denning stated that this was not “ drawn to his attention in the most explicit way. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.” The claimant did not provide sufficient notice which satisfies Lord Denning's criteria for adequate signage.

***********************************************************

My changes:

-Removed point 4's reference to a visitor's permit (I didn't have one). Original statement was "Moreover the defendant has provided proof of both being the customer to the <non retail> and holding a valid visitor permit."

-Added a point 7 in regards to Lord Denning's comments about inadequate signage.

-Modified point 6 on numerous complaints to management as I cannot provide evidence to back this claim. Removed: "This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required. It has been established with the <non retail> management that the terms and conditions have been newly established, and resulting in numerous complaints to the management of the claimant."

Any last comments before I fire this off? TIA :beer:

Lamilad

Yes it's late but only by a few days

Have you checked with the court that your​ AoS was accepted? If not i would do this in the morning.

Defence looks good but you don't get any brownie points for submitting early (33 days from 'issue date'). Hang on a bit longer and keep bumping your thread to see if any of the others would like to add/amend anything.

What do the signs actually say? Is it permit holders only? Do you have a pic?

Loadsofchildren123

Agree with CM - don't disclose that email from the restaurant, it really doesn't help. They shouldn't have paid and should have stood their ground re the signage. It's all very well to go back, stand there, screw up your eyes so you can read all the small print (and possibly take a step ladder so you can actually see the sign properly) - you're supposed to be able to read it from your car before you decide whether or not to park. So it's supposed to be clear, prominent, not too wordy, and has to be that way in order for any contract with the driver to be formed. That is why the Codes of Practice exist (is your PPC a member of IPC or BPA? Look up the relevant Code and you'll see the requirements for the signs - if they don't comply then you've got a good case). What was the wording on the signage? Was it capable of forming a contract - ie did it make an offer, or was it merely forbidding (ie telling you not to do something rather than inviting you to do something).

levitron

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe someone can convert that link for you. I can't on this PC.

Later on, in your evidence, can you prove this:

Lamilad wrote: »

Have you checked with the court that your​ AoS was accepted? If not i would do this in the morning.

Defence looks good but you don't get any brownie points for submitting early (33 days from 'issue date'). Hang on a bit longer and keep bumping your thread to see if any of the others would like to add/amend anything.

What do the signs actually say? Is it permit holders only? Do you have a pic?

Well, this is frustrating. I tried to go on MCOL to look up my AOS info but it did not have my login information at all!!! I am sure I submitted the AoS the moment Coupon-mad suggested it in the first reply. :eek:

I've sent in a request to get my login information reset. This isn't looking good

levitron

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Agree with CM - don't disclose that email from the restaurant, it really doesn't help. They shouldn't have paid and should have stood their ground re the signage. It's all very well to go back, stand there, screw up your eyes so you can read all the small print (and possibly take a step ladder so you can actually see the sign properly) - you're supposed to be able to read it from your car before you decide whether or not to park. So it's supposed to be clear, prominent, not too wordy, and has to be that way in order for any contract with the driver to be formed. That is why the Codes of Practice exist (is your PPC a member of IPC or BPA? Look up the relevant Code and you'll see the requirements for the signs - if they don't comply then you've got a good case). What was the wording on the signage? Was it capable of forming a contract - ie did it make an offer, or was it merely forbidding (ie telling you not to do something rather than inviting you to do something).

The PPC is a member of IPC. The signage was definitely tiny, hard to read, and placed not in a location that was easily readable from where I parked. I'll have to revisit the site to get a new picture of the signage since the one I had seems to have been lost in my files - this should also be a message of forbidding parking rather than an invitation to do something.

Coupon-mad

levitron wrote: »

Well, this is frustrating. I tried to go on MCOL to look up my AOS info but it did not have my login information at all!!! I am sure I submitted the AoS the moment Coupon-mad suggested it in the first reply. :eek:

I've sent in a request to get my login information reset. This isn't looking good

That'll be the stupid Government Gateway system, which expects you to remember the ID number that you get shown once (and there are some very ambiguous logins, passwords and numbers which cause this issue for lots of people).

Don't worry too much, I'm sure you did the AOS if you are sure you did, and you could always call the CCBC to check the status they have for the claim.

levitron

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That'll be the stupid Government Gateway system, which expects you to remember the ID number that you get shown once (and there are some very ambiguous logins, passwords and numbers which cause this issue for lots of people.

Don't worry too much, I'm sure you did the AOS if you are sure you did, and you could always call the CCBC to check the status they have for the claim.

Thanks for the kind words of reassurance. I'm going to follow up again with them today.

levitron

An interesting update from the owners of the restaurant. They reached out to me again via email:

Dear levitron

Thank you for updating us on this matter.

• We want to put on record that we have tried to appeal on your behalf way back in December after reading your review online. We wrote to the proprietor of our unit as well as spoke to the developer, the concierge about your situation.
• The lack of parking affects our business and the frequent issue of PCN is unfair and unjust to our business -as we will lose customer's goodwill and customers.
• We are a small business trying to serve honest good food using on our skills, knowledge and passion. As a new business enterprise, we are prepared for a range of challenges but we were totally unprepared to have to suffer reviews due to lack of parking and slow internet connection and doors that does not close properly in winter- all totally beyond our control.
  Despite the challenges, we focus our limited resource on our core mission to run a good restaurant.
• We have no jurisdiction and no authority over your PCN. At best, we can forward this email thread to our landlord.

Once again, we thank you for your support and wish you every success to moot your point about the signages in your appeal.

With regards

Don't think it's saying much, but is there anything from here I could use?

Umkomaas

Contact your local press. 'Restaurant owner's business hit by unfair parking tickets'. Ramp up the pressure!