Minister Baywatch - contacting landowner

gonzodriver

good idea about contacting the charity commission as well, I have done so.

gonzodriver

OK so i've filed the AoS what defence can I mount??

waamo

gonzodriver wrote: »

OK so i've filed the AoS what defence can I mount??

Have you found the Bargepole concise defence? Adapt that to fit your circumstances.

Coupon-mad

This is what the NEWBIES thread is for; we can't have everyone asking from scratch what defence to mount.

We need you to read the examples and we need to see your draft.

gonzodriver

Good point. I've started drafting one using excerts from previous ones. Will keep slogging at that.

Thanks,

gonzodriver

I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Cotswold Riverside Car Park, Lechdale, GL7 3AQ. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket purchased.”

3. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2018.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.


4. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

Rebuttal of Claim

6. According to the BPA’s Clause 13.2 and 30.2 - If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
According to the Claimants photo evidence the driver entered and left the car park in 12 minutes. If then the minimum period is 10 minutes, then 12 minutes surely still falls within what can understood to be reasonable time to enter the car park, read the signs and decide not to engage in the contract and leave therefore breaking no contract.
An inadequate grace period has been given as required by the BPA Code of Practice which states a grace period of greater than 10 minutes must be offered (10 minutes to exit the car park and an unspecified period to study, accept the terms and make payment). The Claimant is operating in breach of Code of Practice.
The Claimant has deliberately omitted the incident time in the correspondence after their initial letter.

7. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

9. Within the BPA guidelines article 18.3 stipulates specific parking-terms signage must tell drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. The defendant attests that the signs in the Riverside car park determining the terms and conditions whilst were located throughout the car park were not legible or conspicuous as can be seen by photo evidence. Due to the lack of contrast of background and text as well as the tiny font the body of the text is impossible to see unless 2 feet away and the small print a distance of 1 feet is necessary. Meaning it would be impossible for a driver to be able to read the signs whilst driving in the car park and so unable to enter into a contract with the claimant.



10. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

11. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
12. Minster Baywatch Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

13. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
‘The driver of the vehicle registration
XXXX XXX incurred the parking
charge(s) on XX/XX/2016 for breaching the
terms of parking on the land at Cotswold Riverside Car Park
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
is the Keeper of the Vehicle
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
indemnity costs if applicable, together with
interest of £6.81 pursuantto s69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

14. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

15. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

16. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

17. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

18. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

19. The Defendant respectfully suggests that 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.

20. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

21. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Half_way

You should ask the landowner if they support their agents, minster baywatch pursuing this through the courts, and if they do then they must nominate a suitable person such as a trustee who may be required to attend court as a witness, as they are jointly liable for the action of their agents.

Do not mention that minster have issued court papers, you are looking for a we don't support minster pursuing this in the courts response, which can them be shown in your defence.
If you get such a response, you should also let the partying company know and invite them to drop the court claim and cancel.
If the parking company continue, then it leaves the door open for you to claim unreasonable action/expenses/costs

Coupon-mad

Don't repeat the Claimant's case - and they are not in the IPC!

3. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2018.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.


4. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

Remove ALL of the above.

Bargepole's concise defence examples are better than that one.

gonzodriver

Dear all,

I am writing my witness statement and wanted your advice.
also I wanted to get clarification...I didn't go through any of the official appeals..popla etc... will this go against me? Should I mention this in my skeleton defence??

Here is the defence I submitted:
DEFENCE

I xxxxxxx, Defendant in this matter assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle xxxxxxxxxx when it entered xxxxxxxxx and then left 12 minutes later. The PCN stated the contravention as “Parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full.”

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s); xxxxxxx. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Rebuttal of Claim

10. According to the BPA’s Clause 13.2 and 30.2 - If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. According to the Claimants photo evidence the driver entered and left the car park in 12 minutes. If then the minimum period is 10 minutes, then 12 minutes surely still falls within what can understood to be reasonable time to enter the car park, read the signs and decide not to engage in the contract and leave therefore breaking no contract.

a. An inadequate grace period has been given as required by the BPA Code of Practice which states a grace period of greater than 10 minutes must be offered (10 minutes to exit the car park and an unspecified period to study, accept the terms and make payment). The Claimant is operating in breach of Code of Practice.

b. The Claimant has deliberately omitted the incident time in the correspondence after their initial letter.

11. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established

12. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

b. The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

13. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstone’s, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £160. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:

14. Minster Baywatch Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the

landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a

vehicle parking at the location in question.

c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

15. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.

c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.

16. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

17. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

18. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

19. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

20. The Defendant respectfully suggests that 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.

21. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

22. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.



Signature:

Date:

gonzodriver

DRAFT WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXXXX, of XXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked AB1 to which I will refer.

Before I describe what happened on the day I parked in the xxxxxxxxx, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:

a. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking

b. The Claimant's Terms and conditions signage were not clear and legible from the vehicle. After deciding not to accept them I left the car park.

c. Even if I did breach the terms, the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association to apply separate grace periods of at least 10 minutes at the start and end of each period of parking to allow for potential delays in finding a space, exiting the car park and to allow time for drivers to find and read the terms and conditions offered, and the 12 minute overstay is well within these grace periods.


On xxxxx I was on my way to work at a new site and needed a safe place to stop and consult a map. I wasn’t familiar with the car park and road layouts or how busy the area can be, but I made every reasonable effort to leave the car park as soon as possible as my witness attests to.

I have considered the Code of Practice ("CoP") of the British Parking Association ("BPA"), of which the Claimant is an accredited member. A copy of paragraph 13 of the CoP, which relates to grace periods, is at page XXX of AB1. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory, and a copy of paragraphs 4.1 and 6 of the CoP is at page XXX of AB1.

Paragraph 13 of the CoP clearly states that a grace period is to be applied to parking. The CoP makes clear that such grace periods are to be applied both at the start of any parking period and also at the end of any parking period. The whole point of these grace periods is to allow drivers time to find a parking space, to read the signage, and to exit the car park once they have finished parking. Grace periods are not defined, but the CoP requires them to be "a minimum of 10 minutes" either side of the actual parking (paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4).

In this case, the data produced and relied upon by the Claimant shows that the period passing between my car entering and leaving was 12 minutes. Applying the "minimum" 10 minutes either side of the parking, the minimum total grace period I should have been allowed by the Claimant under its own compulsory CoP was 20 minutes. I was therefore well within the grace period. It is worthy of note that the recommended grace period is a minimum of 10 minutes, and the Claimant should have exercised common sense and applied a greater grace period than the minimum to take into account the prevailing circumstances at the time. The issue the court is being asked to deal with is de minimis and the court's valuable time should not have been taken up with this matter.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date:


my understanding of the skeleton defence its a litle sketchy but is the below generally what i need?

SKELE TON DEFENCE

(a) a copy of the Beavis case sign as a comparison to show how awful the small print sign was


(b) photos proving the scarce and illegible small print signs in your case, a view showing the lack of entrance signs, etc.


(c) a video of how it looks from a car.


(d) a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA




(e) a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.




• It is contended that the signs that were in place at the location were unclear and wordy, yet with the actual terms and 'parking charge' buried in small print, thus being incapable of forming a contract, as was found in many cases involving Excel signs at and around that time.


F) DJ Lateef's damning findings about Excel retail park signage in 2011 in Excel Parking Services v Cutts (case no: 1SE02795 at the Stockport County Court) included these observations from her visit in person: “The key issue was whether Excel had taken reasonable steps to draw to Mr Cutts’ attention to the terms and conditions of using the car park”. The signs were found inadequate and the claim was thrown out. It is contended that the signs here were of a similar low, incoherent standard of overly wordy terms in a blue and yellow design in early 2012.


(g) BPA Code of practice, (e.g. the grace periods section 13 of the CoP in a BPA few minutes' 'overstay' claim).



ALSO I have a lady who was in the vehicle with me, what wording should I request for her testimony?

Thank you very much!!!