Link Parking V Mr N

Snakes_Belly

Does anyone know where I can find the full facts of this case please? Does anyone know also if there has been any further rulings with regard to similar scenario's? Thank you.

DollyDee_2

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/link-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

This might help

Coupon-mad

''The judge ruled that frustration of contract applied and that Mr N had attempted to fulfil his contractual obligations but could not because of the broken machine. The claim was dismissed.''

If yours is about a broken machine then you could argue that the contract normally offered was impossible to 'breach' on this day/under these circumstances, as in Pace v Lengyel which has a transcript and is a clear decision at county court level recently:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

Transcript here:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

That case wasn't about a broken machine but was about the parking contract being impossible to fulfil, and then the Judge went to town and smashed the parking charge claim into smithereens. The Parking Prankster reports:

As parking required a permit, and as the driver did not and could not have a permit, the contract in any case failed by the doctrine of impossibility. As many other judges have found with this type of signage, this would mean no contract could be in place and the driver would be a trespasser. As the claim did not argue trespass, it was therefore bound to fail.

I would say that a broken PDT machine also wipes out the 'relevant obligation' and 'relevant contract' pre-requisites in Schedule 4 for keeper liability, because any relevant 'obligation' to pay and display surely ceases to exist, if the means to pay is removed temporarily, by reason of any issue solely within the control of the claimant, and not the fault of the driver.

Otherwise, a cynical PPC (are there any others?!) could install faulty old PDT machines as standard, or even switch them off every Saturday, and then issue a penalty to every visitor every week forever.

The Claimant was temporarily - in the period that the PDT machine was broken (assuming there was no working machine at all made obvious to the driver) - rendered unable to offer parking for the price of the tariff. So, no relevant contract existed that could have been breached.

Tell us more about the issue, what stage you are at, the defence and the PPC, without telling us who was driving, unless that cat is already out of the bag.

Snakes_Belly

Thank you for your reply. The case I am appealing is very similar to Link Parking v Mr N. The operator is claiming that I should have left the car park which is the same as Gladstones claimed in the case of Mr N. I wondered in all the machines were out in Link Parking v Mr N. There were two other machines on the site however one is badly signed (well it was not signed at all) and the other was not visible (at the back of a building. I did look for another machine but could not see one. The car park is a hotchpotch and shared with another operator. Where the "visible" unsigned machine is located, staff from building stand outside for a cigarette break and there are delivery vans there frequently. The operator is claiming that I should have left the car park.

Snakes_Belly

Thank you for your reply. I will be using the ruling in this case in my appeal which is at IAS stage at the moment. My appeal to the operator was rejected (no surprise there). The tide is turning though so I am all for fighting them all the way if there is a possibility I can win.

Umkomaas

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Thank you for your reply. I will be using the ruling in this case in my appeal which is at IAS stage at the moment. My appeal to the operator was rejected (no surprise there). The tide is turning though so I am all for fighting them all the way if there is a possibility I can win.

You do know that you will lose at the IAS, don't you? That loss at the hands of the 'independent' assessor will give them further impetus (and evidence in hand via his decision) to pursue you through the small claims court.

If you are already aware of the above, why are you persisting with following this route?

Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 which provides you with expert advice on why an appeal to the IAS is futile and should be avoided.

Snakes_Belly

There is more to this case than the ruling in Link Parking v Mr N. I do know that there is a very low rate of appeals to IAS that are overturned. The courts are aware that the IAS are not independent hence the private members bill currently going though parliament.

Coupon-mad

NO CHANCE at IAS, do not try it, honestly.

The courts are aware that the IAS are not independent hence the private members bill currently going though parliament.

Yep, we know about the Bill. Not sure all courts are aware about anything to do with private parking though, at all, except the Beavis case. Some courts are shocking (Wigan springs to mind).

Umkomaas

The courts are aware that the IAS are not independent hence the private members bill currently going though parliament.

Are you party to some insider information? Can you corroborate with some source?

Snakes_Belly

I posted for some further information on Link Parking v Mr N. Thanks for the links to that case. I do realise that IAS do not overturn many appeals but they do overturn some. As I mentioned there are other issues one of which has really rattled the operator. If my appeal to IAS is declined I doubt very much whether the operator will take court action as they have made a significant error in their reasons for declining my appeal. They are trying to back track on this matter but they have already committed their comment within the rejection of the appeal. The case still on going with IAS and the operator has made errors in their prima facie case regarding the signage on the basis that as I am not from the area and I won't be able to check it out. I have done. Their only argument left now is that I should have moved my car to another car park and in the last comment from the operator this is on what they are basing their case. Based on the ruling in the Link Parking case I think that their argument is weak.


I may be wrong as I am only a lay person however I have taken on an Energy Company who were threatening me with debt collectors and they ended up having to clear my account (which was estimated on the usage of a previous occupant) and pay me compensation. I will making a counter claim if I go to court and will give this company no quarter.

Umkomaas

I genuinely do hope you will prove us wrong in regard to the IAS. While you haven't given us great detail about your case, what you have said doesn't fill me with great expectation.

Their only argument left now is that I should have moved my car to another car park and in the last comment from the operator this is on what they are basing their case.

I have seen the IAS use that as a very good reason why they have dismissed a motorist's appeal, and found in favour of the operator.

I doubt very much whether the operator will take court action

You haven't told us who the operator is, but if you do tell us we could give you an idea as to how likely or not this would be.