Gladstones court case for parking in own residential bay

bargepole

Jillabean wrote: »

So should I add in about the signage or just leave it out
Should I add anything more to the above defence

You need to understand that the signage has no relevance whatsoever.

They could have erected 10-foot high signs, with the terms and conditions painted in dayglo orange, and lit by neon striplights at night.

None of that gets over the central issue that your lease is the primary contract allowing you to park, without the need to have, or to display a permit, or to pay penalties to a third party for non display.

The lease can only be varied by a properly executed Deed of Variation, in writing and signed by both parties. Signage does not constitute such a variation.

End of story.

The_Deep

Have you seen these?


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/residential-parking/

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/213801109-Parking-Control-Management-Roboclaim-Residential-site

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/sections/115000492465-Residential-parking-problems

Jillabean

Should I put in about the signs or not then
Is there anything I should add to the above defence

Jillabean

Ok I will focus more on the lease thank you
Just finding it difficult to put everything into words

Jillabean

I never thought they would have a case
The pictures clearly show that the part in the window where the permit was has been cropped out

beamerguy

Jillabean

Please also listen to Bargepole, he tends to see these
vermin in court and then spits them out on the floor

The_Deep

in most of these cases the permit is irrelevant as the lease is what gives you permission to park.

The lease is a legal document, the permit is a gesture of goodwill.

Jillabean

Thank you everyone for all your advice so far. I need to submit this tomorrow, any other advice of what to write will be really greatly appreciated.

bargepole

Jillabean wrote: »

Should I put in about the signs or not then
Is there anything I should add to the above defence

Which part of "the signage has no relevance whatsoever" did you not understand?

If you start talking about signage, you open the door for the other side's advocate, and the Judge, to start making arguments about whether or not the signs were clearly displayed.

None of that matters.

Jillabean

bargepole wrote: »

Which part of "the signage has no relevance whatsoever" did you not understand?

If you start talking about signage, you open the door for the other side's advocate, and the Judge, to start making arguments about whether or not the signs were clearly displayed.

None of that matters.

sorry I didn't see the reply until after, still getting used to this site.