BW Legal - LBC?

rsturbomad

Hi All,

So I have adopted some more points from a similar claim where an ANPR camera was used. Also highlighted the errors in recent correspondence where BW have stated that the Claimant is an established member or the IPC.

Is it worth mentioning that I have submitted a SAR and the fact the claim has bounced between multiple third parties including Gladstones?

Here is my latest iteration : -

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
<CLAIMANT>
-and-
<DEFENDANT>

__________________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
__________________________________________________________________________________

1. The Defendant, was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at <LOCATION>

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time.'

3. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an extortionate charge which is completely out of proportion, instead of a few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras.

4.1 Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from a few pounds to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

5. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

6. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. So the Defendant has had to cover all eventualities and this has denied the them a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. The Defendant have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received adequate answers nor all the information requested.

7. Due to the sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. Furthermore the Claimant's solicitors have been reported to the regulatory authority by a ministers of parliament for unprofessional conduct. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

8.1 It is clear that the Claimant's solicitors are using templates with fundamental errors as per the following recent correspondence: -

“As established members of the Independent Parking Community, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.”

Where actually the Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association. These errors question the reliability of their evidence, incompetence and waste of court time.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

9. The Defendant did not see any terms as they merely entered and exited the car park as a means to manoeuvre the vehicle safely, as opposed to attempting to complete a multi point turn on a very narrow and crowded road. The vehicle was stationary in the exit of the car park as they waited for family to enter the vehicle. Thus the Defendant was not parked. Therefore the Defendant was given no fair chance to read any terms, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

10. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were not sufficiently displayed as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

11. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

12. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

13. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers using the car park to manoeuvre their vehicle safely, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

14. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, the Claimant could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

15. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and patronising. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

16. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

17. The Defendant believes the facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

<SIGNATURE>
<DATE>

Thoughts welcomed.

Cheers
Turbo

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE (not STATEMENT)

Your defence needs more near the start about these facts:

I received PCN last year 11/17 from NCP for parking without payment... I didn't actually park nor leave the vehicle as I was picking up my better half and her friend. This is an activity I have done a fair few times however...I was completely oblivious to the recently fitted ANPR camera which snapped me on entrance and exit. (however no proof of actual parking)

I was infuriated when the cowboys from NCP sent threatening letters demanding £60 with and increase to £100 if I didn't cough up soon! This was completely out of proportion to the time I was in the carpark (around 10mins if I remember rightly) so I did a little research at the time and chose not to respond. I would have happily paid up if it was reasonable. Moreover I frequently use this car park and have a lot of proof of payment. Just want to be clear I am not the kind of person who just racks up PCN's for the laugh - I'll happily pay my way if I am actually parking my car.

And it needs a point about breach of the Grace Periods section of the BPA CoP.

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

DEFENCE (not STATEMENT)

Your defence needs more near the start about these facts:

And it needs a point about breach of the Grace Periods section of the BPA CoP.

Many thanks Coupon see below another iteration added sections in red

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
<CLAIMANT>
-and-
<DEFENDANT>

__________________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE
__________________________________________________________________________________

1. The Defendant, was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at <LOCATION>

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time.'

3. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an extortionate charge which is completely out of proportion, instead of a few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras.

4.1 Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from a few pounds to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

5. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the June 2013 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Periods:

13.1 “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

13.2 “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

6. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

7. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. So the Defendant has had to cover all eventualities and this has denied them a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. The Defendant have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received adequate answers nor all the information requested.

8. Due to the sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. Furthermore the Claimant's solicitors have been reported to the regulatory authority by ministers of parliament for unprofessional conduct. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

9.1 It is clear that the Claimant's solicitors are using templates with fundamental errors as per the following recent correspondence: -

“As established members of the Independent Parking Community, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.”

Where actually the Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association. These errors question the reliability of their evidence, incompetence and waste of court time.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

10. The Defendant did not see any terms as they merely entered and exited the car park as a means to manoeuvrer the vehicle safely, as opposed to attempting to complete a multi point turn on a very narrow and crowded road. The vehicle was stationary in the exit of the car park as they waited for family to enter the vehicle. Thus the Defendant was not parked. Therefore the Defendant was given no fair chance to read any terms, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
BPA's CoP 18.5 “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.2

10.1. The Defendant would like to add that this was a frequent activity where the Defendant would transport members of their family home after dining at the restaurant directly opposite the car park. The Defendant adds that this has never been an issue before even when the Claimant's had staff on site.

10.2. The Defendant and their family were regular customers of this car park as they used to dine at the restaurant frequently and therefore have several receipts for proof of payment to this car park when they have actually parked and left their vehicle.

11. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were not sufficiently displayed as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

13. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

14. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers using the car park to manoeuvrer their vehicle safely, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

15. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, the Claimant could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

16. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and patronising. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

17. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

18. The Defendant believes the facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

<SIGNATURE>
<DATE>

Coupon-mad

You have a random couple of lines repeating the BPA CoP grace periods words, in #10 where it doesn't belong.

And a typo:

manoeuvrer

I would remove 10.1 and 10.2 which tells who was driving, and which doesn't assist IMHO. It also makes it clear the driver is a frequent user of the site and that leads to the C saying the driver must have seen the signs before...

Why not put them to strict proof that the parking period was over ten minutes as the Defendant denies this is likely for merely dropping off or picking up passengers?

Why not also deny that the car was actually parked in a bay at all, or that any contract was entered into because the driver was only dropping off/picking up passengers, which is activity quite distinct from actually leaving the car in a parking space.

And was it night time and/or winter, when the terms were unlit? Say so...

By the way, have we asked, do you have any Google location data on your phone from that day or is it too long ago? Can you disprove the alleged time on site, from your phone or old data from a dashcam? Just thought I would ask.

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You have a random couple of lines repeating the BPA CoP grace periods words, in #10 where it doesn't belong.

And a typo:

I would remove 10.1 and 10.2 which tells who was driving, and which doesn't assist IMHO. It also makes it clear the driver is a frequent user of the site and that leads to the C saying the driver must have seen the signs before...

Why not put them to strict proof that the parking period was over ten minutes as the Defendant denies this is likely for merely dropping off or picking up passengers?

Why not also deny that the car was actually parked in a bay at all, or that any contract was entered into because the driver was only dropping off/picking up passengers, which is activity quite distinct from actually leaving the car in a parking space.

And was it night time and/or winter, when the terms were unlit? Say so...

By the way, have we asked, do you have any Google location data on your phone from that day or is it too long ago? Can you disprove the alleged time on site, from your phone or old data from a dashcam? Just thought I would ask.

Many thanks again Coupon. Unfortunately my location history does not go that far back, but a good shout indeed!

See below amendments as suggested: -

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
<CLAIMANT>
-and-
<DEFENDANT>

__________________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE
__________________________________________________________________________________

1. The Defendant, was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at <LOCATION>

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time.'

3. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an extortionate charge which is completely out of proportion, instead of a few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras.

4.1 Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from a few pounds to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

5. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the June 2013 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Periods:

13.1. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

13.2. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

5.1. The claimant is put to strict proof that the parking period was over 10 minutes as the Defendant denies this is likely for merely picking up passengers.

6. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

7. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. So the Defendant has had to cover all eventualities and this has denied them a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. The Defendant have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received adequate answers nor all the information requested.

8. Due to the sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. Furthermore the Claimant's solicitors have been reported to the regulatory authority by ministers of parliament for unprofessional conduct. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

9.1 It is clear that the Claimant's solicitors are using templates with fundamental errors as per the following recent correspondence: -

“As established members of the Independent Parking Community, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.”

Where actually the Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association. These errors question the reliability of their evidence, incompetence and waste of court time.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

10. The Defendant did not see any terms as they merely entered and exited the car park as a means to manoeuvre the vehicle safely, as opposed to attempting to complete a multi point turn on a very narrow and crowded road. The vehicle was stationary in the exit of the car park as they waited for family to enter the vehicle. Therefore the Defendant was given no fair chance to read any terms, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
BPA's CoP 18.5 “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

10.1. In further support of the above the Defendant denies that the car was actually parked in a bay at all, or that any contract was entered into because the driver was only picking up passengers, which is an activity quite distinct from actually leaving the car in a parking space.

11. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were not sufficiently displayed as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

11.1. The Defendant adds that at the time of the event it was dark and any signage were not adequately lit.

12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

13. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

14. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers using the car park to manoeuvrer their vehicle safely, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

15. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, the Claimant could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

16. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and patronising. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

17. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

18. The Defendant believes the facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

<SIGNATURE>
<DATE>

Coupon-mad

13.1. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

13.2. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

Repetition error there. 13.1 is different from 13.2 but you've repeated the same words.

System

5.1. The claimant is put to strict proof that the parking period was over 10 minutes as the Defendant denies this is likely for merely picking up passengers.

This is the core argument. How long was it?

Any reasonable person visiting a Pay and Display car park would expect to pay. The terms would have been on any signs. (Do you have a pic of them)

As regards "grace period" this is to allow a reasonable person not intent on "creating legal relations" i.e. parking to read the terms and leave. The problem here is after admitting you been there a number of times, there is an implicit understanding the driver had seen the signs - as well as the implicit understanding that a driver pays in a P&D car park.

It is more likely this is a[n inadvertent] trespass issue rather than a breach of contract issue and your defence may need to lean that way.

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Repetition error there. 13.1 is different from 13.2 but you've repeated the same words.

Thanks Coupon - amended as follows: -

13.1. “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

13.2. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

IamEmanresu wrote: »

This is the core argument. How long was it?

Any reasonable person visiting a Pay and Display car park would expect to pay. The terms would have been on any signs. (Do you have a pic of them).

Cheers IamEmanresu, Unfotunatelty I dont have the original PCN anymore and cannot remember the specifics with regards to stay. But from memory it was roughly 10 mins. I was literally blocking the exit of the car park and as far as I was concerned wasnt actually in a bay. May come across a little obnoxious but parking didn't cross my mind as I didn't need to park so looking at T&C's wasn't even an after thought...until now :mad:.

IamEmanresu wrote: »

As regards "grace period" this is to allow a reasonable person not intent on "creating legal relations" i.e. parking to read the terms and leave. The problem here is after admitting you been there a number of times, there is an implicit understanding the driver had seen the signs - as well as the implicit understanding that a driver pays in a P&D car park.

It is more likely this is a[n inadvertent] trespass issue rather than a breach of contract issue and your defence may need to lean that way.

Agreed and I removed the parts regarding being regular patrons as per Coupons previuous comments. Will have a read through other posts regarding trespass and see if I can expand a little. I still have time to tinker.

Thanks again all.
Turbo

rsturbomad

Evening all,

Struggling to find any posts with details regarding trespass. Could any of you provide a link to a post or info I may be able to use please?

I have been to the car park in question and captured a few shots of the signage and a short in vehicle perspective clip. The signage is limited. No T&C's etc just mentions contacting them for a copy. The only area that is blatently lit is the entrance / exit of course!
Shall I share the photos with you? Ill mask the location out if need be.

Cheers
Turbo

Coupon-mad

Search the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis for the word trespass, and you will find the Judges said that a parking firm who are not in possession of the land cannot pursue a matter of trespass (landowner only).

And read PACE v Lengyel, a very good summary by a clued up Judge which I am sure talks about trespass & the fact a parking firm cannot pursue it. It's among the CASE LAW hosted by the Parking Prankster.