Opinion on this signage

energy1x

Umkomaas wrote: »

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?

I'm always grateful for all the help I receive here and I hope I've paid that back by updating the previous thread. You can forgive me that as I have a current claim this year I cannot and will not divulge too much info that would allow a prowling PPC to identify me here which could jeopardise my current defence.

energy1x

Returning to the signage, please can you all add your critique on it and highlight it's weaknesses.

To reiterate, I am at witness statement stage and the photo I included above is MY photo not the PPCs.

Is the signage forbidding?

Is it capable of forming a 'contract' for any breach at all?

Is it capable of forming a 'contract' for a breach regarding any incorrect/absent permits

Comparing the signage to that of Beavis as an example of very clear signage, in my analysis the signage here is rather weak and comes up very short of the clarity of that in Beavis. Do you all agree?

Thanks all :T

Coupon-mad

Yes, as I mentioned before:

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.

And you can read bargepole's win at Guildford from yesterday (on the forum a few pages back) to read what a Judge said about what was almost certainly a similar UKCPM sign.

Half_way

Just jumping in and asking for an opinion on a sign isnt that helpful, as there is no indication as to wher ethat sign is, or what it releates to.
Is this a residential area? your own space? some little car park tucked away behind some shops?



As for the sign, it would fail the beavis test as the £100 isnt particularly prominent, however without the details above, giving advice on the matter is urinating in the wind.

energy1x

Half_way wrote: »

Just jumping in and asking for an opinion on a sign isnt that helpful, as there is no indication as to wher ethat sign is, or what it releates to.
Is this a residential area? your own space? some little car park tucked away behind some shops?



As for the sign, it would fail the beavis test as the £100 isnt particularly prominent, however without the details above, giving advice on the matter is urinating in the wind.

I thought I had said earlier the sign is in a residential area however in my experience of defending several claims this hasn't proved that relevant.

As always I appreciate everyone's opinions.

Coupon-mad

Your residence? If so, tenant or leasehold owner?

Or was the driver a legit visitor (with or without a permit) or were they trespassing and going off on holiday while plonking the car there for a week?

It all makes a difference!

energy1x

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Your residence? If so, tenant or leasehold owner?

Or was the driver a legit visitor (with or without a permit) or were they trespassing and going off on holiday while plonking the car there for a week?

It all makes a difference!

Driver was a legit visitor apparently with an 'invalid permit', although I also suspect the latter may be the case too, trespassing. What would constitute a trespass?

Coupon-mad

Being unauthorised - nothing criminal!

But that's not the case if they were there on the invite of a resident, they were not a trespasser then. And caused no damage in any case.

Go and find PACE v LENGYEL in the Parking Prankster's case law pages and read the transcript. I would say what the Judge says in that case will help you understand part of your defence argument.