Countrywide Parking Management ltd Appeal Denied

baart77

Sorry, I meant permitted as in permit only car park

Coupon-mad

You are not wrong.  A grace period always applies.  There has to be time to read the contractual terms and leave.

Surely the cases they are quoting are all easy to find by searching the forum for the surname (this board only)?

There is nothing new in a tedious template WS and people have shot down all their yawn-inspiring 'case law' on here before, hundreds of times.

Jenni_D

baart77 said:

Sorry, I meant permitted as in permit only car park

I know what you meant - and that doesn't change my comment one iota.  

baart77

So let me rephrase it to make sure I understand you correctly- are you saying if this is permit only car park and they are saying I wasn't permitted to park there, I  cannot then enter into a contract to park there ?

Jenni_D

baart77 said:

So let me rephrase it to make sure I understand you correctly- are you saying if this is permit only car park and they are saying I wasn't permitted to park there, I  cannot then enter into a contract to park there ?

Bingo! One cannot contract to do that which is forbidden.

But that's only one possible element of your defence.

baart77

Ok, you got me a little confused here. Please clarify, I thought entering the contract in this case means accepting the rules that govern the site which means either displaying the permit or leaving the site or paying the fee? Why would it not be possible?

baart77

Another thing - they argue that in one photo there is pcn affixed to the windscreen, there is something there but in no way it is clear what it. They argue also that in one photo there's a sign visible in the background and nobody reading it, further they say that as a resident my dad should be aware of it. If anything it  proves more the sign was not  lit as required by IPC CoP. The photos are really really bad but they say it is a false technical argument to disrupt the legal process. How do I argue against that if at all? Is it even relevant considering other arguments where they clearly fail?

baart77

In the paragraph Why the defendant is liable they say 

Defendant does not deny being the keeper and driver
Defendant doesn't deny parking there on the contravention day and therefore entered into a contract
Defendant breached the terms and conditions
And having been put on notice failed to settle under the pcn

Earlier they say there was no appeal in  the 28 days from the pcn so failed to engage with the claimant 

Where do I stand then as I followed the advice to not appeal? 

Coupon-mad

baart77 said:

Ok, you got me a little confused here. Please clarify, I thought entering the contract in this case means accepting the rules that govern the site which means either displaying the permit or leaving the site or paying the fee?

Why would it not be possible?

Pace v Lengyel:

 http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

PCM v Bull et ors:

http://nebula.wsimg.com/b84a6ffd1e3514097ca033a01c8db4b7?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Not necessarily all Judges would agree...

I believe a point about unclear signs and no grace period allowed is better.  But use ALL the arguments.

baart77

Hi, emailed the statement to court and got a reply confirming it. It says there - 

• The total size of the email including attachments and copies for service (where appropriate) must not exceed 25 sheets of A4 paper when printed double sided.

I was not aware of that, should I send it again using smaller font to get it under the limit? Or leave it as is? With the atachements (mainly the transcripts) I have 64 pages? Please advise.