Letter Before Claim - Gladstones

nosferatu1001

If there was no contract offered, there was no contract offered, regardless of what the vehicle was doing.

It just sounds better if you can say definitiely what the vehicle was doing.

georgia_00

Thanks again. Have amended the wording.

Parking sign:



Layby/unmarked bays (to the right of image)

KeithP

georgia_00 wrote: »

Parking sign:

https://ibb.co/iiKMZ7

This line on that sign looks useful:

georgia_00

Hi Keith, that line is forming the basis of the sign being forbidding argument, therefore no contract exists.

I was thinking that works in my favour, unless you think otherwise?

KeithP

Yes I agree with you. It works in your favour.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's like in the Judgment of PCM v Bull et al, click on & read the transcript here:

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

discussed here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

I would cite the Bull case, not this one, partly because it is PCM and the signs are almost the same, and partly because the above one has a transcript:

2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester; in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.

Have you got in your defence, the bit about Watchdog and PCM saying when outed in that programme that they 'make it up most of the time' when dealing with appeals?

I would. And I would mention the Parliamentary debate about this rogue industry and the IAS appeal/Gladstones/The IPC not being independent/having a conflict of interests.

These links might help if you didn't find these posts and cases to read, already:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72030628#post72030628

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71477121#post71477121

HTH

georgia_00

Thanks for the responses nosferatu, keith, and coupon mad.

Next chance to get on a proper PC i’ll prepare a final draft that will hopefully be suitable for submitting online in my defence.

I’ve tried to keep it as concise as possible, and will also try to weed out any final bits of waffle too when I edit.

Many thanks again

Umkomaas

I!!!8217; !!!8216;draft!!!8217;

Get rid of these as follows:

Please switch off your 'Smart Punctuation' on your iPhone/iPad to avoid the littering of your posts with !!!!8217; and the like, as every apostrophe and some other punctuations convert to exclamation marks and numbers.

Go to 'General' > 'Keyboard' > 'Smart Punctuation' and flick the switch off.

Switching off seems to have no detrimental affect on any other use of the keyboard.

georgia_00

2nd Draft:

- Deleted 3.2 (possibly contradictory stating the signs could not be read from the vehicle, however I am arguing the signs clearly state no parking for unauthorised vehicles? Also photo evidence shows the vehicle parked directly next to a sign, therefore possibly a weak argument)

- Edit 3.3 (the 1 minute 8 seconds period of timestamps on the photo's by PCM didn't make a lot of sense/make a point)

- Edit 2.4 (Added PCMUK vs Bull et al case, deleted the ES parking case)

- Edit 2.2 (Added 'no parking for any other vehicles at any time')
_____________________________

1.2. This claim refers to a parking incident in an unmarked lay-by outside the Barham Park housing Estate, in Wembley. For all intents and purposes this bay appears to be part of the public highway.

1.3. On the 29th October 2016 the vehicle was in said unmarked lay-by.

1.4. Over a period of 1 minute and 8 seconds, going by the photographic evidence provided by PCM, a parking charge notice was applied to the vehicle.

1.5. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.

1.6. The claimant refused to provide any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges, citing client confidentiality.

2. No Contract Exists

2.1 I understand from correspondence with the Claimant that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms. The sign states 'No parking for any other vehicles at any time'.

2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of £100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract?

2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and PCMUK vs Bull et al, in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.

3. Inadequate Signage

3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

3.3 The IPC guidelines (1.15) state Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. No specific time is given, although (15.2) specifies a minimum period of ten minutes for leaving the site. I do not consider the time given was adequate time for the driver to read (driver recalls approx 3-4 minutes) and assess the signage on site.

4. Consumer Rights

4.1 The signage at the site does not carry the information required by the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), specifically on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2.

5. Landowner Authority

5.1 Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any evidence that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have the authority to do this.

6. Additional Costs

6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of £50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.

______________________________________________

georgia_00

Shall i state the length of time the car was parked?

There is no time in/out, just 1 minute and 8 seconds worth of timestamped photo's.

Is there a good argument there worth making/expanding on?

I think i'm ready to submit this online tomorrow apart from that final point.

Thanks
Georgia