Opinion on this signage

energy1x

Have a current claim I am defending.

For now, please can I have your opinions/verdict on the below signage:



Is it capable of forming a contract with drivers/keepers or is it forbidding only making an offer to those with 'valid permits' and therefore any vehicle with NO permit or an invalid permit cannot come under the remit of this sign?

Coupon-mad

What happened in the end with this one, can you update this thread too, please?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5658347/help-me-with-pofa-compliance

And re that sign, due to the Tippex under the PARKING CHARGE section, it's not clear who pays the £100 at all because it doesn't state that the charge arises due to non-compliance with the t&cs. It doesn't qualify how the £100 applies, at all.

Could be for all parkers, the way that's drafted!

Therefore it creates no 'relevant contract' nor 'relevant obligation' to do, or promise to avoid doing, anything at all.

energy1x

Thanks for your comments Coupon-mad, great stuff.

The claimant UK CPM has submitted a very poor quality image of the signage (the above is my own image). Hardly anything can be read such is the poor quality of their image of the signage.

Based on the above and the weakness of their signage, is it worth the gamble of me including the above image and using it against them? Obviously I could say/do nothing and hope the judge isn't able to decipher their poor image and that will be enough. I'm tempted to include the above however as although I'm in a way helping the claimant by showing a clear copy of the sign, the sign itself is incapable of forming a contract so hopefully it will only strengthen my case?

I'll update the previous thread, I won that case.

The_Deep

The judge may ask the PPC for clearer photographs of this sign. It does seem to have a number of different sized fonts, one of which is very small. How high off the ground is it?

Have you read this?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/motorist-wins-18-month-ticket-battle-870812

energy1x

due to the Tippex under the PARKING CHARGE section, it's not clear who pays the £100 at all because it doesn't state that the charge arises due to non-compliance with the t&cs. It doesn't qualify how the £100 applies, at all.

At the very top of the sign it says in very small print 'Breach of the terms and conditions of parking will result in the driver being issued with a parking charge of £100'.

However in this case the driver parked with allegedly the 'invalid permit'. There is no mention of 'invalid permit' only 'valid UK CPM permit'. Who or what decides whether a permit is valid or not? Is this a good argument to pursue? The permit displayed in the claimant's photos has no date and is not expired.

energy1x

The judge may ask the PPC for clearer photographs of this sign. It does seem to have a number of different sized fonts, one of which is very small. How high off the ground is it?

So high off the ground I had to raise my arm fully extended to get my phone at the correct position to take a decent snap. So at least 6-10ft high, with the very top of the sign one of the most small print parts.

peter_the_piper

energy1x wrote: »

At the very top of the sign it says in very small print 'Breach of the terms and conditions of parking will result in the driver being issued with a parking charge of £100'.

However in this case the driver parked with allegedly the 'invalid permit'. There is no mention of 'invalid permit' only 'valid UK CPM permit'. Who or what decides whether a permit is valid or not? Is this a good argument to pursue? The permit displayed in the claimant's photos has no date and is not expired.

Surely if the permit is not valid then the driver was trespassing!! In this case surely a fee of £100 is also not valid?

Coupon-mad

is it worth the gamble of me including the above image and using it against them?

Not at defence stage. What stage are you at?

energy1x

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not at defence stage. What stage are you at?

This is now at witness statement stage.

energy1x

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Surely if the permit is not valid then the driver was trespassing!! In this case surely a fee of £100 is also not valid?

How can I explain this point in terms of my witness statement?

I note from other threads that this signage seems to be a standard sign from UK CPM so has it been found in previous cases to have been a sign unable to contract with?

Was this case won on the basis of such signage, featured on parking pranksters blog:
Thursday, 22 March 2018
Court report. UK CPM lose on POFA and signage
Case No. D6GF60EJ – UK CPM -v- Mrs H – Before Deputy District Judge Bruce. Chatham.

Umkomaas

Are we getting any update on your past thread, as requested? You had quite a bit of help from the forum, but then nothing back.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75072644#Comment_75072644

Is this thread likely to go the same way?