Parking Eye Claim Form

jimmyt05

From this sign there was the normal Parking Eye sign inside the car park. But I never read it or went up to it due to this sign.
So basically I saw Free Parking drove in, parked, left my car then and went to gym.

Any way in my defence I can say I read these sign and not the parking eye as their the occupier of the land. Not known but if they're giving out free parking it should be owned by them.
Thanks for the help.

[Deleted User]

There's a conflict of signage/parking terms here (how interesting).

The entrance sign (hereinafter referred to as "the Mecca sign") does not cross-refer to the signs containing different terms within the car park (hereinafter referred to as "the ParkingEye signs").

It's a bit technical - I can't say if a DJ would like it (insofar as you were not bingo playing and the Mecca sign is fairly clear) BUT, in principle, if you agreed to and/or relied on a Mecca sign - 'taking your chances' as it were, then it is by no means certain that ParkingEye can rely on their signs. Normally the larger entrance sign has a sentence referring to parking terms within the car park - this does not.

If the above analysis follows (and why would you assume signs were different), Mecca could issue a ticket and you accepted that risk (but not the costs of any ticket as none appear on the sign) and it's unclear whether ParkingEye have any entitlement to bring the claim.

jimmyt05

Conflicting signage/parking terms. The Defendant entered the car park on the entrance's sign terms, it was not clearly stated that other signs containing different terms were within the car park.

The signs were ambiguous. It was the Defendant’s honest belief that this was a free car park, shared between two buildings, the bingo (xxx location) and the gym (xxx location). At the car park entrance, the sign makes patrons an offer in large lettering: 'Free Parking' but apparently this Claimant is now suggesting that this is offered only for the bingo members. If it's free for one side, one wonders why wasn't the other clearly and unambiguously separated/signed or delineated differently and prominently, in line with Lord Denning's ''red hand rule''.

Should I remove the bolded sentence. As the sign shows it clearly.
Thanks for the help and reply.

[Deleted User]

Yes. There may have been conflicting signage, but that sign is pretty clear and fwiw I think even from a moving car the first two lines are readable.

More photos of the site may help your argument.

jimmyt05

I will go and take more photos when I get the chance, this can be submitted after I submit my defence, at the WS stage.

Heres my point 2 in the defence.

2. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the Defendant and the Claimant.
c) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
i. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was woefully inadequate.
ii. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
iii. Conflicting signage/parking terms. The Defendant entered the car park on the entrance's sign terms, it was not clearly stated that other signs containing different terms were within the car park. It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible, the signs do not mention of any parking charge. The Defendant cannot agree to pay any amount of sum as no contract was created and agreed upon.
iv. No promise was made by the Defendant that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
v. The signs were unclear and ambiguous. It was the Defendant’s honest belief that this was a free car park, shared between two buildings, the bingo (xxx location) and the gym (xxx location). At the car park entrance, the sign makes patrons an offer in large lettering: 'Free Parking'. If it's free for one side, one wonders why wasn't the other clearly and unambiguously separated/signed or delineated differently and prominently, also in line with Lord Denning's ''red hand rule''.
vi. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory;
vii. the sum pursued exceeds £100.
viii. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

The parts in bold are me talking about Parking Eye sign, therefore should I include it. The points before is me talking about Bingo signs.

jimmyt05

any advice ?

Coupon-mad

I will go and take more photos when I get the chance, this can be submitted after I submit my defence, at the WS stage.

Good; I think you have all you can fit into the defence at this stage.

jimmyt05

Hi all, so I'm at the witness statement stage and I am not sure what to include.
At this stage is where I state facts and honest beliefs. Which was only that I believed it was a free car park, so what else could I add ?

So my WS would be something like this:

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXX, am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at XXX on XXX.
ParkingEye are arguing I was bound by unknown terms creating a contractual charge, yet this £100 was not a term known or agreed at the point of making the contract.

2. I did park at XXX, but believed that this was a free car park, shared between two buildings, the bingo (xxx location) and the gym (xxx location). As at the car park entrance signs states free for Bingo customers, but no mention from anything from the Gym and it's customers.

2.2. No other signs were referenced from this entrance sign, therefore I would have not been aware if others were present inside the car park.

2.3 No contract terms was proposed.

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

Signed and Date.

KeithP

You need much more explanation.

1. Explain what the 'unknown terms' are and why they are unknown.

2. Explain whether you were gym or bingo customer.

2.2. Just because there was no reference to other signs on the entrance sign, that is not an excuse to ignore all other signs. Were there other signs? Were there signs near where you parked?

2.3. Explain why no contract was formed.

Make sure that your Statement of Truth reflects the document you are signing.


All my questions above are rhetorical questions. They are only there to help you think on how you can expand this document.

Have you read any other examples of Witness Statements available on this forum?

Coupon-mad

WS stage is where you file your evidence photos of those confusing signs, and your proof of patronage of the Gym or Bingo, and case law referred to in the defence, and any other useful things you intend to rely upon (a video showing how confusing the two areas are would be good, taken from a dash-cam or simply with a passenger taking a video as you drive in).

Maybe a second WS from the Gym or Bingo Manager confirming you were AUTHORISED to park there as you were a patron and that 'the signage is ambiguous and catches lots of people out, and it's the bane of their lives with all the patrons affected by and complaining about PCNs', would be good.

Have a look at the examples in the NEWBIES thread, some file 15 or more pieces of evidence. Not saying you need to do that but please, go and read how others won their cases with good WS/evidence!