County Court Claim Form Notice, Claimant is UK CAR PARK MAnagement via Gladstones

Quentin

Instead of a dot (as in mse.com) use the word dot

paulheale

ww<br />w.dropbox.co<br />m/s/m7v8kl3mvhe5izr/IM<br />G_0520%20%281%29.JPG?dl=0

paulheale

One needs to remove the <br /> - there are 3 hidden in the url

Coupon-mad

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7v8kl3mvhe5izr/IMG_0520%20%281%29.JPG?dl=0

'Authorised vehicles only' could be construed as making no offer to park to those without a permit. No contractual offer = the charge is (arguably) not recoverable, and the remedy would only be for the landowner to pursue any nominal damages/loss, under the tort of trespass.

Because of choosing to park there 3 times I think you might have your work cut out to get the Judge onside but the bottom line is this:

You would be mad to pay £631 now to avoid possibly losing at a hearing and paying half that!

You can CERTAINLY argue that the charge on the sign is £100 and that means the claim should be £300, and that the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, does not allow for double recovery. The £100 is already an inflated sum to include a profit (not loss) for a parking company, as was held in the Beavis case, where ParkingEye were only allowed to pursue the £85 charge on the signs, no add-ons, no pseudo-loss plucked out of thin air.

In the other often-quoted case, ParkingEye v Somerfield, it was held that £135 was probably an unrecoverable penalty, even if the 'parking charge' was not.

Anyway, please search the forum for more defences, try different relevant keywords, and show us a more robust draft defence than that one which says nothing at all, seems too bland and isn't one I would have homed in on, if I was reading search results.

Umkomaas

I was advised to ignore all letters by a friends

How are your friends helping you with this? Complete strangers are now coming to your rescue, the least you could do is to demand that your friends put their backs into this to help with your defence. Ask that they put some monies aside so that in the worst possible scenario you are ordered by a judge to pay (some of) this as a result of their utterly crap advice.

It will at least, ensure they don't issue this gratuitous, totally ill-informed advice to anyone else, especially when they don't have to face the consequences of it!

paulheale

Agreed Umkomaas. And the all the help thus far is appreciated.

To confirm my defence should be and limited to:

- I am the register keeper and not the drive at the time
- Signage is wrong
- The penalty is a vastly inflated sum and therefore not reasonable

I'm really struggling and spent hours reviewing historic posts and still no closer to understanding what i'm doing. - Is there a recommended person / organisation i can pay to prepare my defence?

Coupon-mad

No. Others here will (I expect) say that there is no service worth paying for.

It is certainly true that no solicitor who would act for you would have the detailed knowledge we do (and you can't reclaim their costs). Only the BMPA, who can give free advice. But I am a founder member of the BMPA myself and the advice you are getting here is the same!

Show us your draft, and be careful to use the sort of wording I used about the sum, not saying it's ''vastly inflated''. Don't use your own words, follow our examples. We write ours in the knowledge of what will/won't be likely to have legs at a hearing.

There are LOADS of defences on here, and the NEWBIES thread post #2 even tells you how to head it up and set it out, right down to the line-spacing and font size. You can't ask for more helpful/knowledgeable hand-holding than you will get here; all you need to do is come off this little old thread and look around at others about defences.

[Deleted User]

1. Is that the only sign?
2. Does the NtK actually say how long the vehicle was parked for?

Based on that wording, even entering the land & doing a u-turn before leaving immediately is basis for a £100 charge. Except that the wording is sloop small as to be impossible to read from a moving vehicle, before you are on the land and, in theory then liable for the charge.

If the above point works (if not seen all the signs) the classic case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking applies. Not only by way of citeing with approval of Denning LJs "red hand" but, more importantly, setting out new terms only after it was too late (in this case when already parked and charged by the ANPR).

The slight hazard is that this may get you off once, not thrice.

As such, the argument that the sign is entirely forbidding in nature and therefore incapable of agreement in any event (you had no permit, were not entitled to one, so the sign offers no contractual offer - you were never "authorised" - that was capable of agreement) may be the best primary argument to run.

Coupon-mad

Just to add, you will like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5563690

Makes GREAT reading!

jordo88

Sounds like a dog, id pay it