Appeal dismissed by IAS

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Excel are saying that the contract is formed at the point of entry into the car park and cite Thornton v Shoe Lane which is a barrier car park. This car park is about as far removed from a barrier car park than you can imagine. There is the Travelodge sign, some portable signs, a parking sign (could be either car park).

When Excel submit their plan of the car park the signs look quite prominent but in reality they are not.

All sounds similar to the Excel / VCS / BWLegal fake claim of ....
Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films

I'm sure you can direct the judge in the right direction with such a discrepancy

And if they mention Beavis, you know how to rebut that

And well done to Fruitcake for his help

beamerguy

And Snake ..... whilst you are waiting to meet the judge, the other side may well sit and have a chat to you.

They have been known to talk cr*p to scare you or put you off or even try to hand you a paper.

Talk to them by all means but only "how nice the weather is today"

Snakes_Belly

Beamer,
I can knock out Thornton and Shoe Lane, Beavis (signage and not true estimate of loss) and the case that they have use to justify the debt collection fees. There are numerous ways in which they have not complied with the COP but this does not seem to count for very much with judges. These are their cases. If you look at google maps DE14 2JJ turning left off Derby Street into Miller's Lane. Lidl on the same side. Take a look at the entrance bearing in mind that this is the entrance to two car parks and cars will also be exiting from this road onto a main road.

I have not denied that I knew the car park was a pay and display but they are trying to make out that the contract and acceptance of the terms and conditions were made at the point of entry.

Fruitcake

Just a point of order, many of the cases they and I have mentioned may be persuasive but not case law unless from a higher court.
You will need to be careful how you word your comments when referring to these.

Don't forget that Millers Lane has two entrances to the car park where the alleged event took place. The Driver used the second entrance which is completely unsigned as opposed to the first entrance that has many cluttered signs for several different businesses at right angles to the direction they driving.

Highlight the fact that if the driver was looking where they were going, as in straight ahead whilst watching for other traffic and pedestrians, having turned in from Derby Street, they wouldn't see the first lot of multiple signs at all, and there aren't any signs after that.
If another vehicle was leaving Millers Lane, the driver wouldn't have seen the cluttered signs at all.
In addition there are no signs on the left/nearside of Millers Lane where a driver would reasonably be expected to look.

Snakes_Belly

I am trying to find a recent case of a motoring transgression that went to court. The case involved a driver who went down a one way street. They claimed that they did not see the sign. The case was dismissed because there was a forest of other non-related signs.

It was on BBC news recently and one of my relatives drew my attention to this but could not remember where the incident took place. I have googled but I cannot find anything. Whilst this is a motoring issue there is still a principle. Thank you.

Fruitcake

I wish I had realised earlier that it is possible to enter the second car park entrance, the one without signs, via the Lidl car park.

It may be too late to use the images but you can of course mention that they are freely available on google maps from September last year so can be considered contemporary with your case. One of the images even shows a lorry unloading in front of the second P & D machine completely obscuring it from most of the car park.

I'll send them via pm to you.

Edna_Basher

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I am trying to find a recent case of a motoring transgression that went to court.

I think this is the story you're looking for.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47175357

Snakes_Belly

Thank you Edna, It must be the one. It's certainly useful. Too much signage is hard for the brain to process especially when you are driving. Much of the signage in the case that I am defending is not even parking related. Thanks.

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake wrote: »

I wish I had realised earlier that it is possible to enter the second car park entrance, the one without signs, via the Lidl car park.

It may be too late to use the images but you can of course mention that they are freely available on google maps from September last year so can be considered contemporary with your case. One of the images even shows a lorry unloading in front of the second P & D machine completely obscuring it from most of the car park.

I'll send them via pm to you.

I telephoned the Court and they accepted them by email. Copied in the Claimant. I also taking copies. Interesting motoring case about signage overkill. There is a lot of signage in the Derby Street Car Park that is not even parking related.

Because the large blue and yellow sign which states the terms and conditions is in very small font and has been rubbished by Martin Cutts and an MP, they are trying to make out that I accepted the terms and conditions upon entry to the car park citing Thornton v Shoe Lane. I cannot see how this case will apply to the Derby Street car park. I think that their argument is weak on this point but who knows as it's a DJ lottery.

Thank you for all your help what you did has helped to focus my thoughts. When I first started to fight this claim I had a grapeshot approach which I can now see is not the way to go.

I think also there was a misapprehension the COP's are meaningful.

There was also a lorry on the day I took the photographs blocking the view. I don't think that there is a back entrance so everything would go in through the main doors. It was the laundry on the day that I went to take the photographs. Quite a large van. There is also the dray men who would deliver and food suppliers.

Thank you.

antandann

My god! Just read the start of this thread and it would seem the scammers know no mercy. If it was part of a work of fiction it would be seen as too far fetched, yet this is the reality of ripoff Britain in 2019.

I can't be of much use to you technically unfortunately. All I can say is whatever the result, you've already won by taking on these ruthless parasites.