Contract Acceptance v eyesight

QualitySign

I received a ticket (using ANPR) after my vehicle was parked in an almost empty car park one evening from a PPC but they seem to think I entered into a contract with them. In order to do this the driver would have needed to read, understand and agree with their alleged conditions but without their reading glasses with them (not needed for driving) the sign could not have been physically read and hence no contract was formed.

They of course ignored this, and letters from DRP are now being received and ignored which do raise the old blood pressure a bit. So my question really is, without naming the driver, would this be a valid defence should they actually take me to court?

I have read all the newbie threads when this all started but seen nothing like this mentioned, so apologies if it has.

Johno100

Well it is new and novel idea to try

Quentin

Debt collectors letters are covered in #4 of the newbies FAQ thread.

If you do get a claim in future come back for advice on how to deal with this.

Simply saying you cannot read without glasses won't win!

They have 6 years to start legal action

Amberpunter

Quentin wrote: »

Simply saying you cannot read without glasses won't win!

On that basis does that mean the defence of a lack of lighting after sunset is not something that can be won on too? That was one of the key reasons in my appeal against a PPC, as again a contract could not be formed if the terms offered were not readable.

Coupon-mad

Lack of lit signs, yes that has legs.

Signs must be readable in darkness or dusk, and lit if necessary, and that (lighting & clarity) remains in the control of the PPC. Therefore the PPC fails, if signs are too dark for an average driver to read.

Needing reading glasses for a sign, no. Because the court would consider whether the contract was prominent and readable for the average man on the Clapham Omnibus (Google it!).

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

They of course ignored this

That was silly, unless this was in Scotland, or an IPC firm. The Deep has assumed it was UKPC, in which case if it was them, the keeper threw away POPLA as an option to kill it off.

Guys_Dad

When parking on private land as well as public land, one needs to assume that there are t&c attached to the parking facility.

To forget to bring the suitable spectacles to read the signs is 100% down to the driver.

Next case, please.

Quentin

Amberpunter wrote: »

On that basis does that mean the defence of a lack of lighting after sunset is not something that can be won on too? That was one of the key reasons in my appeal against a PPC, as again a contract could not be formed if the terms offered were not readable.

No.

Your defence is entirely different to the one proposed here (which won't work)

Your success was based on something completely different!