Claim form received, advice needed please!

doughboy2000

Assuming the Claimant has photo/video evidence of the Defendant leaving the site whilst parked there and that there is sufficient number of signs can anyone advise as to what angle defence could take?

Penalty excessive?

Turning into car park off busy dual carriageway with pedestrians crossing the car park (people walk through car park from housing estate and Hotel to get into town) so Defendant must concentrate on not hitting people rather than seeing the sign at the entrance?

The signs are quite high?

IMG_2432.jpeg (Photo of sign, hopefully)

Castle

doughboy2000 wrote: »

Assuming the Claimant has photo/video evidence of the Defendant leaving the site whilst parked there and that there is sufficient number of signs can anyone advise as to what angle defence could take?

One way to find out is to send a SAR requesting copies of all photos, CCTV film/video (if applicable) and notes made by the PPC's operative.

Umkomaas

Link doesn't work.

NEWBIES - HOW TO UPLOAD LINKS TO PHOTOS/SCANS TO MSE

To upload a photo/scan link, you first need to host it on a free photo hosting site (like Dropbox, Imurg or Tinypic), copy the URL, paste it here, but change the http to hxxp and we'll do the conversion. Newbies can't directly upload links to photos/scans until they've a few posts under their belt.

doughboy2000

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ph4ifjajix2seeq/IMG_2432.jpeg?dl=0

Photo of parking sign if anyone can see any issues?

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Sign:

doughboy2000 wrote: »

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ph4ifjajix2seeq/IMG_2432.jpeg?dl=0

Cluttered wording, lack of white space, lack of clear and brief terms - compare it to the Beavis case sign that I've linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2 in the lower part about WS and evidence stage. Look at them both - CHALK & CHEESE!

Penalty excessive?

Never - killed by the Beavis case in 2015.

Assuming the Claimant has photo/video evidence of the Defendant leaving the site whilst parked there

We say, you assume wrong. They will not have photos of who the driver was, nor that person 'leaving the site' (what site). A Defendant is entitled to raise the issue of what constitutes 'the site boundary', given that the signage doesn't show a map/boundary...

and that there is sufficient number of signs

So what, they are cluttered in wording, absolute gobbledegook and the terms about leaving the site are vague due to no boundary, and hidden in small/closely packed print.

can anyone advise as to what angle defence could take?

Usual Gladstones defence points (see other threads) plus putting them to proof (photos) that the driver left the site.

You could also contact the Council to check when planning permission was given for that retail park - did it allow them to limit patrons to shopping on site? Often LAs require car parks to be for general use as part for the planning consent, so ask the planning dept for a copy.

doughboy2000

Great info, thanks. Defendant has been told by a reliable source that it's the Travelodge (next to Lidl) that actually owns the car park. Wondering if there's anything there to work with?

Quentin

Are your initials CP?

System

Have you got a pic of the signs yet? The last one I've seen says 90 mins for Lidl customers / Travelodge guests have to display a permit. Nowhere does it say that you can't leave site. (See a UKPC sign for that one)

So in order to have breached the contract you would have to have been over 90 mins or a guest of Travelodge. Get a pic of the sign and the Notice to Keeper and check one against the other.

doughboy2000

Quentin - why?

IamanEmanresu - Pic of the sign is above, it does say about leaving the site

Umkomaas

Quentin wrote: »

Are your initials CP?

doughboy2000 wrote: »

Quentin - why?

Because your cover page of your Dropbox account, accessed via your link, seems to show a real name (albeit initials CB!).

You are advised never to reveal your real identity on this forum.