County court advice needed

Dollshouse

Here is a link to a photo of the entrance sign from Pepipoo

aich tee tee pee ess //tinypic.com/r/2gtya35/9

The sign has been partly covered but the main thing is that the word FREE is still easily read and very prominent.

I have witnesses for the sign. Do witnesses have to appear in court in person?

nosferatu1001

Seriously, just use hxxp. No silly phonetics



Yes, ideally they will also appear in person. Without appearing in court the court may reduce the weight given to their emphasis.

Dollshouse

Can somebody point out which legislation covers contracts for car parks. More precisely which legislation would they have to comply with in order for a contract to have been formed?

Lamilad

Can somebody point out which legislation covers contracts for car parks.

There isn't a specific piece of legislation that applies to car park contracts.

You have the consumer rights act which (among many other things) regulates unfair terms in consumer contracts in English contract law.

And the Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 4, which makes it possible for PPCs to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving... But only if all conditions within the act are followed strictly, and to the letter.

Dollshouse

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's interesting - and important. Whose name is on the signs then?

The car park is operated during the day by Parking Places LTD but ES Enforcement have put up parking charge signs. There are two different sets of terms and conditions displayed.

I guess this is important because Parking Places would need to have a contract with the landowner and ES would need to have a contract with either Parking Places and/or the landowner. Right?

Surely they are well aware of that and will have it in place. They make a lot of County Court claims and surely they aren't going to lose cases on such a simple point.

In this defence https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5698354 the defendant says,
"Preliminary
1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;"

I'm not sure that the claimant would have to include a copy of their contract with the landowner in the Particulars of Claim. I appears to me that the written contract referred to in the Practice Direction is a written contract between the claimant and the defendent when one exists.

Can somebody clarify this?

Coupon-mad

There are two different sets of terms and conditions displayed.

I guess this is important because Parking Places would need to have a contract with the landowner and ES would need to have a contract with either Parking Places and/or the landowner. Right?

Yes, right.

And even more usefully, it helps you because two sets of signs make the terms ambiguous, and under the famous Consumer Rights Act 2015, any ambiguity MUST be interpreted by a court, in the way which most favours the consumer. Look how this one played out in court:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/link-parking-v-cowles-another-big-win.html

I doubt the 'Parking Places' signs mention a contract to pay £100, therefore if the driver only saw that sign from the day-today operator, he/she can't be bound to pay £100 they never even knew about, or agreed to pay.

I'm not sure that the claimant would have to include a copy of their contract with the landowner in the Particulars of Claim. I appears to me that the written contract referred to in the Practice Direction is a written contract between the claimant and the defendent when one exists.

Can somebody clarify this?

I agree, that example conflates two different issues of ''contract''.

Dollshouse

I have a couple of days before this has to be in and I’ve written a short and concise defence statement. I have read around the keeper liability issue and can see no point mentioning it. Even though they haven’t complied with PoFA, I think they might have covered that by claiming against both the driver and/or the keeper. I can also see little point in challenging the standing although it might be useful to find out what contracts they have. I have decided to keep it simple and stick to my one point of defence that the signs are totally inadequate and misleading. However I am worried that I might have missed something and they could surprise me in court. Advice needed.


Here is what I have so far:
In the County Court - Claim No. ****

Between

****** LTD (Claimant)

and
*******(Defendant)
DEFENCE STATEMENT

I deny that I am liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, because no contract was established between the claimant ******* LTD and the driver. No contract was established because the signs were inadequate.

When the vehicle was parked there was a large and prominent sign at the entrance to the car park indicating that the car park was free of charge. This was the only sign at the entrance.

Other signs in the car park were contradictory and misleading.

Signs placed by the claimant are considerably smaller than the other signs, they have the smallest lettering, are the highest above eye level, are the most remote from the entrance and are unlit.

There is a sign stating terms and conditions which reinforces that the car park is free of charge. This sign is larger and contradicts the terms and conditions on the sign showing the claimant’s terms and conditions.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (c.15) PART 2 Para 69 states: “(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.”

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

(name) (Date)

Coupon-mad

You are being very brave if you only give yourself the matter of signage to hang your hat on. I wouldn't recommend it; you've not even challenged the pointless added 'costs', and you should.

I have read around the keeper liability issue and can see no point mentioning it. Even though they haven’t complied with PoFA, I think they might have covered that by claiming against both the driver and/or the keeper.

No they haven't, not at all. In fact, the POFA assists a keeper in that respect, pinning the sum potentially recoverable, to the sum on the NTK. The POFA also assists because it states that adequate notice' in signs, of the parking charge. So the statute assists you.

I think you could make more of this, the ''movable'' signs being changed:

The car park is operated during the day by Parking Places LTD but ES Enforcement have put up parking charge signs. There are two different sets of terms and conditions displayed.

Dollshouse

What you're saying doesn't seem logical to me. The whole thing about keeper liability depends on the signs being inadequate and if the signs are inadequate then there can't be a contract. I'm not liable for a penny because there is no contract so whether they are claiming against the driver or the keeper is irrelevant.
Also, somebody said higher up this thread that the judge can ask who the driver was in court which also seems to make the driver/keeper argument pointless.

Coupon-mad

I'm not liable for a penny because there is no contract

I don't disagree. BUT if the Judge disagrees then you have no safety net.

I wish you well and hope you do win, but can't recommend a one-point defence and certainly not missing out even an objection to the sparse particulars of claim and added costs 'out of thin air'. If the Judge isn't with you on your defence point, you lose and you lose for the whole extortionate amount because you didn't raise the issue of random added costs.

What if the Claimants file a series of photos of these new signs in close-up, and the Judge swallows it?

The new signs say: Terms and conditions ... Pay and Display ... breach of any term or condition will result in ... charge of £***... By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all of the terms and conditions. In the middle of all the small print in letters 6mm high it says. Terms and conditions apply 24hrs a day... that is the only indication that they expect payment 24hrs a day.