CEL help with court defence needed

asunnyday

[FONT=&quot]I have made the changes recommended – can you please take a quick look to see if this version is OK before I submit. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Many thanks in advance for comments.


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Claim No.: [/FONT][FONT=&quot][INSERT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Civil Enforcement Ltd[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Claimant)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]- And - [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][YOUR NAME][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Defendant)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]__________________________________________________ ____________[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]__________________________________________________ ____________[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration no. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][INSERT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked in Cirencester Hospital Car Park on 11th January 2018. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2. The Car Park in question is one with which the Defendant was unfamiliar. There were no signs easily visible in the Car Park nor Pay & Display machines obvious indicating how payment might be made. The Hospital’s website states that parking is “free for all staff, patients and visitors if they enter their vehicle registration details on an IPad in the hospital reception". However the claimant saw no IPad or signage in reception, at the time of visiting the hospital.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3. On the date in question (11th January 2018) the driver of the vehicle had been requested by the staff to visit the hospital to give a medical opinion on the treatment of an inpatient. Normally an average of 1 hour would be allotted for such visits and the duration of the stay in the Car Park was 54 minutes. Nursing time within this role is very sparse commodity and, as is usual for a Macmillan Nurse, this was one of many patient visits to differing address for the Defendant that day.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4. Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Claimant, I 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 Claimants trade body, the IPC. My 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. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £170, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £50.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]6. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I 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 Claimants trade body, the IPC. My 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. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

You have copied a pretty old defence there, can tell from the phrases used. And...Civil Enforcement is not/never has been an IPC member!

I don't think you have enough by way of defence there in your draft, and by quoting the website it makes it seem that you should have done that sooner and been aware, so I would NOT quote it.

There is a ParkingEye defence you can use and adapt about hidden ipads/keypads, that you can adapt and it has much more to it. Search the forum for Odeon hidden iPad ParkingEye

Also look at the NHS Parking Principles because a MacMillan Nurse should not be penalised like this, it is shameful and against Government policy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

I would add that to the adapted Odeon/hidden iPad defence.

Loadsofchildren123

When you come to do your WS, play on the fact that you are a Macmillan nurse, psychologically the judge will be more on your side.


Have you been back and looked at the signage? Was it very hard to see, or was it there and you just didn't notice it? Was it a P&D?

asunnyday

I have made the changes recommended – I would greatly appreciate it if you can please take a look to see if this version is OK before I submit. [FONT=&quot]

Many thanks in advance for comments.


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Claim No.: [/FONT][FONT=&quot][INSERT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Civil Enforcement Ltd[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Claimant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]- And - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][YOUR NAME][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]__________________________________________________ ____________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]__________________________________________________ ____________[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration no. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][INSERT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked in Cirencester Hospital Car Park on 11th January 2018. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2. The Car Park in question is one with which the Defendant was unfamiliar. There were no signs easily visible in the Car Park nor Pay & Display machines obvious indicating how payment might be made. The Hospital’s website states that parking is “free for all staff, patients and visitors if they enter their vehicle registration details on an IPad in the hospital reception". However the claimant saw no IPad or signage in reception, at the time of visiting the hospital[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and iPad that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a 'PCN' that was not properly issued from the outset.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3. On the date in question (11th January 2018) the driver of the vehicle had been requested by the staff to visit the hospital to give a medical opinion on the treatment of an inpatient. Normally an average of 1 hour would be allotted for such visits and the duration of the stay in the Car Park was 54 minutes. Nursing time within this role is a very sparse commodity and, as is usual for a Macmillan Nurse, this was one of many patient visits to differing addresses for the Defendant that day. [/FONT]


4. The NHS Patient, Visitor and Staff Parking Principals October 2015 state that staff should be able to park as "conveniently and as economically as possible" and also state Trusts should consider "pay on Exit or similar schemes". The NHS Parking Principals also state that details of charges should be well publicized including at car park entrances and this was not the case on 11th January 2018.[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £170, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £50.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. [/FONT]
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]6. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

That's nothing like the one I suggested you look at:

There is a ParkingEye defence you can use and adapt about hidden ipads/keypads, that you can adapt and it has much more to it. Search the forum for Odeon hidden iPad ParkingEye

Redx

asunnyday wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £170, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £50.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

I do not believe that statement at all, parking charges are normally £100 OR LESS

read what the BPA CoP says about these parking charges, ESPECIALLY ANYTHING OVER £100


the original pcn will state the maximum charge, with a discount of 40% for early payment

asunnyday

Hi Coupon mad thanks for this, are you able to send us a link as we looked for ages. Redx could you tell us a bit more about what we should be saying re parking charges?

Quentin

Use the forum Search as suggested by CM

Use Google to read up on the BPA Cop

asunnyday

Hi


Could you take a look at this amended version. Thanks in advance.

• Background
  
  1. The Defendant is 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 Cirencester Hospital car park on 11/01/18.
  
  1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 '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'.
  
  
  Data Protection concerns
  
  3. The Defendant was an occupant of the car, however, 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 £100 instead of the 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 at a hospital car park where there would likely be no cars unconnected to patrons, no trespass nor 'unauthorised' parking events, and where vulnerable and anxious people are parking.
  
  4.1. It is not ethical to install a hidden ANPR camera data stream, against the rights and interests of thousands of unsuspecting but circumspect visitors to the Hospital, who are being caught out regularly by this trap.
  
  4.2. Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from £4 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.
  
  4.3. The Claimant will have some difficulty in justifying their hidden and unexpected terms at a site where the Defendant now learns from researching online reviews, that the Claimant has also added an unexpected and unwarranted (given the nature of the remote location) '4hr max stay' rule on top. These are not the 'brief, simple and prominently proclaimed' terms that convinced the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to bend the penalty rule in that unique, fact-specific case only.
  
  4.4. These concealed restrictions are misleading and excessive and tip the balance so far against visitors that there is an imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, which is contrary to the listed Prohibitions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
  
  5. Clearly there shouldlbe ParkingEye staff regularly onsite, who could reasonably enforce parking rules with drivers face to face, whilst managing the car park fairly and ensuring that any PDT machine is clear and obvious to drivers and not a hidden 'pitfall or trap'. The ANPR cameras represent disproportionate and excessive data processing, given the nature of this location, and the Claimant's DPO is put to strict proof of its data risk assessment and compliance with the Information Commissioners Office's ANPR surveillance camera Code of Practice.
  
  
  Premature claim - no Letter before Claim, and sparse Particulars
  
  6. Due to the sparse details on the 'PCN' (taken to be a scam piece of junk mail, since it did not come from any Authority or the Police and arrived weeks later) and the equally lacking and embarrassing Particulars of Claim (POC) and the complete lack of any Letter before Claim, this Claimant afforded the Defendant no opportunity to take stock, obtain data, copy letters, and images of the contract on signage. There has been no chance to even understand the allegation, let alone discuss or dispute it prior to court action, as should have been the case under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.
  
  6.1. The Defendant avers that the claim was premature and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the letters they say were sent and where they were posted to, after the PCN itself, and evidence from their case status data that a Letter before Claim and attachments required under the Protocol, were issued, and when/where they were sent.
  
  7. The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
  
  8. The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant, for response during November 2018, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.
  
  
  Denial of contract and denial of any breach, or liability
  
  9. 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.
  
  10. 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.
  
  10.1. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing.
  
  10.2. The ParkingEye signs within the parking area are equally as hidden and therefore misleading. Furthermore there are no clear signs that were 'bound to be seen' between where the Defendant believes the car was parked and the entrance to the Hospital or the Ward.
  
  10.3. The PCN and POC could mean that the Claimant is suggesting the car overstayed paid for time, or even that a wrong VRN was recorded by the PDT keypad, and it is impossible for the Defendant to be certain about the alleged breach and to make an informed decision about what to say by way of defence, which puts the Defendant in a position of disadvantage.
  
  
  
  No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate
  
  11. 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 against patrons of the Visitor Centre.
  
  
  
  No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished
  
  12. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. The driver has not been identified, the PDT machines and signs/terms are not prominent, the VRN data is harvested excessively by two automated but conflicting data systems and the PCN was sent very late with a 'parking charge' that bears no resemblance to the £4 'parking charge' tariff, and as such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.
  
  12.1. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the other facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:
  
  Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.
  
  Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''
  
  Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''
  
  
  
  Unconscionable, punitive 'parking charge' - again, Beavis is distinguished
  
  13. If the 'parking charge' (the first interpretation meaning the car park tariff) was unpaid, then the sum 'owed' is a quantifiable figure. The sum 'owed' was a small tariff of some £4. Had the Defendant been clearly alerted to the sum on the day - or even simpler, if they could have had the certainty of paying it when buying the Visitor entry tickets or had the 'parking charge' (tariff) been included within the entry fee itself - there would be no unfair penalty, and the Hospital Trust (or landowner) would gain in income and avoid any parking issues at all, including all the complaints mounting up online about ParkingEye.
  
  13.1. Instead, this Claimant is operating a punitive unjustified and excessively data-intrusive ANPR system to their own ends, which is not transparent to consumers. A hidden 'parking charge' of £4 unexpectedly becomes an extortionate £170 bill several weeks later (described also as the 'parking charge') and yet this is not the sort of 'complex' issue with a 'compelling' commercial justification that saved the charge in Beavis from the penalty rule.
  
  13.2. Taking the comments of the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal in the earlier hearing in Beavis) into account, the 'parking charge' sum owed in this case can, at most, only be £4 and there was ample opportunity to fairly collect and transparently advertise that sum on site, on the material day.
  
  13.3. This regime in a car park is believed to have changed 2017 is not commercially justified, is damaging the reputation of the Hospital, and is surely the epitome of unfairness and unconscionableness. Thus it cannot be excused from the penalty rule by any 'legitimate interest', both taking into account the GDPR data principles meaning and under the Beavis case definition. 13.4. At #22, in Beavis, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin's speech in Dunlop: ''as Lord Dunedin himself acknowledged, the essential question was whether the clause impugned was unconscionable or extravagant. [...] The four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts.''
  
  13.4.1. And at #32: ''The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest {of ParkingEye} [...] In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin's four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''
  
  13.5. The Court will be aware that Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty include the principle - which went unchallenged in the completely different 'free car park' considerations in the Beavis case - that: ''it will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid''.
  
  14. Even if the court is minded to accept that the terms were clear and prominent, the 'parking charge' tariff was indisputably a 'standard contract', which would be subject to a simple damages clause to enable recovery of the sum that 'ought to have been paid' which was believed to be £4 and no more.
  
  14.1. No complicated manipulations of the penalty rule can apply to a standard contract like this one, with quantified damages, otherwise every trader could massage any £5 bill to suddenly become £254.69.
  
  14.2. In Beavis it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, as that would have failed. It was accepted that £85 was the sum for parking, and that was the 'parking charge' for want of any other monetary consideration in a free car park. It was not pleaded in damages, unlike here, where the sum for parking was just £4 and the Claimant is trying to claim damages of £254.00, no doubt hoping for a Judge who cannot properly interpret the intricacies of the Beavis case.
  
  15. Further, and in support of the view of the unconscionableness of this charge, given this set of facts, the Defendant avers that a breach of the data principles and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, when added to the lack of clear signage, lack of Letter before Claim and sparse POC, transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
  
  16. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
  
  16.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.
  
  17. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) 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 (NTK) in this case £100. In the Beavis case, ParkingEye were only able to seek the only stated 'parking charge' sum on their NTK, since there was no quantifiable tariff.
  
  17.1. It is not accepted that the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper (and for this they are put to strict proof) and nor is it accepted that £204.69 can be claimed instead of £4 in this case, but either way, the additional sum of £50 on top, appears to be a disingenuous attempt at double recovery.

1. On the date in question (11th January 2018) the driver of the vehicle had been requested by the staff to visit the hospital to give a medical opinion on the treatment of an inpatient. Normally an average of 1 hour would be allotted for such visits and the duration of the stay in the Car Park was 54 minutes. Nursing time within this role is a very sparse commodity and, as is usual for a Macmillan Nurse, this was one of many patient visits to differing addresses for the Defendant that day.
   
   
   19. The NHS Patient, Visitor and Staff Parking Principals October 2015 state that staff should be able to park as "conveniently and as economically as possible" and also state Trusts should consider "pay on Exit or similar schemes". The NHS Parking Principals also state that details of charges should be well publicized including at car park entrances and this was not the case on 11th January 2018.
   
   20.. 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.

• 
  
  I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
  
  
  Name
  
  Signature
  
  Date

Coupon-mad

Is it true that there was no Letter before Claim?

Are you sure or have you copied the defence verbatim? You need to make sure every word makes sense for your case.

Is this true or copied? Did you have to pay a tariff at a PDT machine of £4 to park there as a staff member? A tariff pay & display car park, not a hidden keypad then to exempt your vehicle? But you said this!

A news article in 2016 says the car park is free for visitors patients and staff as long as they enter their details on an iPad in reception, which I also never saw.

You've copied stuff that isn't relevant here, and maybe elsewhere in the defence, so I stopped reading (checking the facts is your job!):

4.2. Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from £4 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.

4.3. The Claimant will have some difficulty in justifying their hidden and unexpected terms at a site where the Defendant now learns from researching online reviews, that the Claimant has also added an unexpected and unwarranted (given the nature of the remote location) '4hr max stay' rule on top.