Will they go to court or not?

waamo

rizla01 wrote: »

Umkommas.

Thanks for the explanation, I didn't realise.

Perhaps its time to throw myself at the mercy of PE then.
Sadly too much sh One T all at the same time has taken effect so maybe best to put it down to experience and pay up!

Thanks for taking the time tho.
:beer:

PE have been known to negotiate up till the 11th hour. If you can’t face court ( and I respect not everyone can) then it’s still worth trying negotiating the best deal you can get.

rizla01

Johnersh wrote: »

I make no guarantee that this works, but you could construct an argument thus:

1. In principle, if in a drive thru parking bay or (even better, just in the queue and within the yellow ring - in the part that is KFC only she was no longer shopping and was at the restaurant. It's more complex if she was merely in another bay nearer it.
2. The parking event was over. She had, to all intents and purposes, left. She was no longer in the parking area (at all), not the bay that she had parked in, nor occupying any of the access roads around or between the parking bays.
3. She availed herself of the opportunity to obtain a takeaway as she was leaving. The approach of PE would appear to preclude this (which cannot have been the intention of the contracing parties that employ them)
4. The signage states specifically SHOPPING and on any interpretation she was using a RESTAURANT. It was either (a) not part of the site in question (precluding any ticket) or if a part of a single site (b) not included within the restriction, the Defendant having complied with the requirement to have moved her car and ceased shopping.
5. The issue is that the location of the camera covers a single point of access, not the parking area it is intended to enforce. That failing is a failing of the system designed by and operated by the Claimant, not the Defendant.

Interestingly the Google Maps images are bang up to date. There are few repeater signs and, more so, none in the immediate area of the KFC or on the drive thru gantry warning that the restrictions continue to apply.

Below I have scanned the two signs on site (One I believe to be for blue badge holders)
plus a plan of the signage .

ALSO a snap from Googlmaps showing clearly a different road surface around the drive-in so you may have a valid point there.


Since it states 'Max stay', would the time to read said signage and decide whether or not to remain, have any bearing on the 2 hours max as I cannot see that can possibly be fair as people that have already read the sign and are happy to park, gain an unfair extended parking time as they don't need to re-read the sign.

According to something I read somewhere, a reasonable time for reading signage, deciding on place to park and queuing to leave park PLUS the transmit time of the cars details on a very congested server, need to be accounted for too?

Your thoughts, please?

[Deleted User]

Look at the plans: no signs in the KFC. Arguably a separate area entirely, like I say.

The sign itself does not say you need to exit the site within 2 hours merely that there is a 2 hour parking maximum. You were no longer parked. You had left - you did not remain obstructing a bay whilst you popped in to the restaurant. Once in the KFC queue you were not in a parking area at all (customers can only park in marked bays). It is in that sense distinguishable from Beavis who certainly did obstruct others from parking.

I agree with waamo that it's always worth trying to negotiate, but to clarify, my view as set out above is that they may wrongly interpret an offer now as fear that you may lose and in that sense they may hold out.

If you're gonna do it, I'd get a defence in and then make an offer to settle, making clear all the reasons why they'll lose, but offering (for example) £50 to call it a day. They can walk away having reimbursed the court fee plus a bit and you avoid a hearing.

When it comes to tactics litigation is a bit like poker - who blinks first with some luck and unpredictability rolled in. That's why I like it, but it makes certainty difficult. Entirely up to you as only you know if the fight is a realistic option.

Quentin

#op

Long before Christmas you were advised by cm of the reasons why you should get in touch with pe ,( in your daughter's name) as they know they are on a sticky wicket on eg grace period/separate parking instances etc ,(#11 in your original thread)

Yet are posting now as if it just came to you !!

You posted today that you have not contacted pe - why not,??

Go back to your thread and have another read of the sound advice cm gave you, and consider trying it out. Pe know this is a sticky wicket!

rizla01

Quentin wrote: »

#op

Long before Christmas you were advised by cm of the reasons why you should get in touch with pe ,( in your daughter's name) as they know they are on a sticky wicket on eg grace period/separate parking instances etc ,(#11 in your original thread)

Yet are posting now as if it just came to you !!

You posted today that you have not contacted pe - why not,??

Go back to your thread and have another read of the sound advice cm gave you, and consider trying it out. Pe know this is a sticky wicket!

Death in family. Age. Daughters marital strife and her attempted OD to name a few reasons. Quentin.

Perhaps they may just have a bearing on the reasons for the delay and i sincerely apologise to anyone that has been put out.

BUT..

Is that REALLY relevant to my NOW needing to deal with this case in anyway?

Quentin

It is relevant - the advice you were given in that post by cm is still available to follow.

She hoped that following her suggestion your daughter would be spared court and not cost her a penny!

rizla01

I forgot to mention that my Daughter parked at the top of the picture - away from the signage. Look close and there are no signs up there so I am not sure IF she read the T&C's (wink) Is that a defence worth trying in your opinion?

I agree, now that you have rightly pointed it out, that she/we do have a good case in our favour re- the restaurant not being a shop and that the area doesn't constitute a parking zone and I would bet that the judge would agree, but would I possibly get my daughter to attend without too much trouble.? The hearing is only likely to last 10 mins or so, I expect.

I think I may risk contacting PE, even at this late stage, and make them aware of my arguments and perhaps suggest that they are on a hiding to nothing and the fact that they have committed themselves to coughing up for the court fee is down to them.

What i am not sure about is, would it be good practice to put these arguments before the judge in the Defence form that I need to get filled out and SIGNED by the 31st of should that stay as basic ( I parked, shopped, ate and left) as possible. What are you thoughts here, Johnersh?

Also, Are the facts about reading and digesting T&C's and THEN her moving car to a place she wished to park acceptable as an argument for a) Double parking (i.e. TWO parking events), and b) time allowed for parking and leaving valid as arguments here?

Also one other point - it is not clear where the entrance to the parking area actually begins. I.E. is it approached via a service road surrounding the parking area? A broad yellow, white red or blue line would define the area but it shows as just a continuation of the side road from where it is accessed. Could that be relevant, at all?

Once again, Johnersh, apologies for taking your time up on this but I would really like to put it to bed and your advice, suggestions & guidance (and patience) have been very constructive so a real big thanks.:)

rizla01

Quentin wrote: »

It is relevant - the advice you were given in that post by cm is still available to follow.

She hoped that following her suggestion your daughter would be spared court and not cost her a penny!

Water under the proverbial now tho, isn't it?
The advice given WILL be taken into account but obviously we cannot turn back time, so as I said, those points you raised are mute

Coupon-mad

Can you remind us what the unsigned defence said?

The other thread should be merged with this one. Nothing totally new is being said, really; we'd already said the argument should be that there were two parking events. Now we've seen the site map we can see that the entire KFC is unsigned (so patrons would reasonably not think this is part of the restricted 'shopping' area) and the entire top row of bays, the whole run, is unsigned...

It was already suggested that PE are likely to discontinue this one (given away by the fact they wrote TWICE panicking and wanting to settle for £60 - almost unheard of for PE except when they want to fold!).

Yes, the defence has legs. But what did the first one say? Two threads don't help us look!

rizla01

Hi CM.
Looks like i made a mistake starting a new thread. I have asked one of the Mods to merge both threads now.
This is a rough of the defence that she put forward originally.
Obviously we need to remove the unwanted part.



Also in the Reply to Defence Parking eye state.
"Parking Eye also operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking."

There is no mention of how long the grace period lasts and also no mention of grace periods for leaving car park.