My Defence Parking eye charge Help

mac132

Overview of my situation
Evidence from PE

/imgur.com/a/F0VBF

FACTS
Vehicle entered private car park without permit
Length of stay 15mins. Reason: delivering food to customer from hotel. Manager of hotel emailed PE to cancel any charges, yet PE have not done so as its at court stage and offered to lower the amount.
signs not visible. (No lamp posts or anything whatsoever see links above)

Preparing my defence, still looking for relevant paragraphs to add, open for feedback and improvements. Hopefully it will help some of you who are in similar situation.

Also how would you go about getting case referred to POPLA, as I was advised this happened some circumstances? (IF ANYONE KNOWS?)

Feedback will be much appreciated

I believe that this ticket was issued unfairly. I am not liable for the amount payable because:

1.PEs own photographic evidence show it is near impossible to read the small wording on the sign, particularly at the height it is mounted at over 2 meters above the ground, with a non-functioning street lamp / no lighting at all.

2.Entrance to the parking was “pitch-black” due to insufficient lighting, , making signs essentially hidden from view. I could not be bound by a contract I have not seen.

3.Principle has demanded PE to cancel any charges, yet not adhered.

4.The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

5. PE has also not proved authority of the landowner to issue parking charge notices - a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice, and Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 to which PE must adhere. PE has not provided evidence to demonstrate authority to issue parking charges on this land in the form of a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of contract between PE and landowner.

6. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.

7. Unreasonable fine which cannot be justified as no such loss of earnings could have been accrued.

8. Further, the charge is an unenforceable unfair contract with reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015, para 62.4 - requirement of good faith that adequate notice was given to motorists of the ‘terms’. With reference to Schedule 2 Part 1 para 6, the charge is vastly disproportionate to any alleged interest and nothing other than a punitive sanction.

9. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

10.The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £60 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed.

11.The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.

12. Photographic evidence sent by PE was too dark to be able to tell the location of where the vehicle was parked and therefore could not appeal as defendant was not able to tell what place PE was referring to.

13. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.


Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.