How can the law assume we've entered contracts, assume we see signs?

Snakes_Belly

infocom wrote: »

That's the only argument I have. Parking Eye are basically making an assumption that I saw signs, and if I fail then I feel like the law is calling me a liar. Saying there are signs just implies 100% of people see them and if you say you didn't you are a liar. So I don't understand how the law can say that without evidence I saw the signs.
Thanks

If you are used to using Council run car parks and receive a ticket for a minor transgression such as a fluttering ticket or a flipped disabled badge they are usually cancelled upon production of the ticket or the badge. Not so a PPC which catches a lot of people out. There is a big disparity between Council run car parks and PPC's.

I don't think that it's the law that is calling you a liar. It's the PPC's using the law for their own purpose. Judges may take a different view but not all.

[Deleted User]

The directors of these PPC's could make a decent living without fleecing the motorist. IMHO they are parasites feeding off spurious claims. It almost like a protection racket. Pay up or we will continue to harass you and ultimately take you to court. Threats about what could happen if you receive a CCJ.

This is what made me (and no doubt Nicholas Bowen QC) come after the PPCs concerned with our tickets.

Having won, I was almost disappointed when I got paid as I'd just located the home addresses of all the directors and the business location of the PPC (as supposed to their registered office) in preparation to start enforcement against the company assets.

I mean they wrote to me at home after all. If they don't want to be found they need to "stay off the grid.." not be listed in the phone book.:rotfl:

Maintaing the moral high ground, my correspondence would have been quite different to their missives as I actually have a CCJ secured against them, as supposed to the threatening hogwash that they send out to consumers.

Oh and in answer to the o/p's original question the law does not assume the contract is formed. It is for the PPC to prove that there was a contract and that it was formed. That requires:

1. Offer (the sign)
2. Acceptance (implied by parking)
3. Consideration (the value in the parking)

Plenty of cases where unclear signs, lack of signs or terms not visible prior to the forming of the contract prevented enforcement. That includes the seminal case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking.

Sadly the car park in question is now an outpost of Deloitte but NCP still ran it as a car park until about 5 yrs ago.

If these cases are to be defended you need a very good statement supported by photos to show how poor the signage is.

Arguing the law is unfair is the path to failure. We know the PPC advocates are distinctly average at best. The defendants in here will always know the facts of the case better and have time to be better prepared, so use that time and prepare well. I had the court working from my paginated bundle as the PPCs statement was e-filed and not fully printed!

Snakes_Belly

Johnersh wrote: »

Plenty of cases where unclear signs, lack of signs or terms not visible prior to the forming of the contract prevented enforcement. That includes the seminal case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking.

If these cases are to be defended you need a very good statement supported by photos to show how poor the signage is. !

The Shoe Lane case is a favourite at the moment certainly with Excel and VCS. The way in which the PPC cites the case is that the contract is formed by the signage at the entrance to the car park. Many car parks do not have clear signs at the entrance and some have none at all. Shoe Lane was a barrier car park whereby the car would have to stop.

The photo's that the PPC will use are taken at a time when the car park is empty and well lit (possibly photo shopped). This is why it is best to take your own photo's or a video and a second pair of eyes helps as they may pick up something that you have missed (hat tip to Fruitcake).

Shoe lane sounds as if it was a purpose built car park. They are not all like this and in my case the car park was cluttered with non-parking signs some in similar colours to the PPC's signs.

Another trap that a newbie falls into is to think that the current codes of practice are binding on the PPC. They are just guidelines. This confused me at first as I came from a very regulated industry.

Umkomaas

Another trap that a newbie falls into is to think that the current codes of practice are binding on the PPC.

An error they share with the greatest legal brains in the country, as the Lord Justices of The Supreme Court (ParkingEye v Beavis) also thought that the CoP was 'effectively binding' on PPCs.

But, of course, neither the BPA nor the PPCs believe that. The DVLA does believe it to be the case, but no one will provide a definitive and binding statement, leaving the motorist completely lost (and vulnerable) in the smoke and mirrors thus created.

Funny old world, isn't it?

The_Deep

Even if it were binding, how would it enforced? If even the SRA cannot control the rogue elements in its midst, what chance does a body, funded by PE and its likes, have.

[Deleted User]

Thornton v Shoe Lane is important for the fact that the automated machine dispensed tickets with additional terms that the driver could not have consented to.

The PPC may well cite it, but possibly wrongly. The point holds good - you cannot consent to terms or establish a contract if terms were never agreed.

Conflicting signs may help, but your evidence may need to address what (if any) signs the driver did trouble themselves to read, to avoid any suggestion of wilful blindness.

Shoe Lane car park was most definitely purpose built....

infocom

Thank for all replies. I have a letter before county court claim. All the posts stating what to do are very confusing to me to be honest, I dont know if they are applicable or what.

So I am still unsure of the original question. @johnersh came closest with this, but I still find it unclear...
"Oh and in answer to the o/p's original question the law does not assume the contract is formed. It is for the PPC to prove that there was a contract and that it was formed. That requires:

1. Offer (the sign)
2. Acceptance (implied by parking)
3. Consideration (the value in the parking)"

So basically point 1 and 2 really confuses me. I totally undertand point 2 if someone sees the sign in point 1. But if they dont see the signs in point 1, then point 2 is not applicable as of course they will park, they saw no signs.

So its still unclear whether the law will say I am in a contract just because there are signs (which means the court is saying I am a lier because if I am not a lier then I am not in a contract), OR if the law states that I am not in a contract as there is no evidence of me seeing any signs.

Points 1 and 2 are implied. So I'd like to know if the law says people can enter implied contracts. This of course means everyone will be in a contract even though some wont know anything about it and have not agreed to it. But its implied they have entered it. It just does not seem right.

So are implied contracts legal? Just showing evidence of signs and me parking does not actually mean I agree to it all, as it is implied I saw the signs.

I am inclined to pay the now £100, I have till the end of the week, just because I have no idea if the law will agree I am not in a contract, and all the posts here what to do are just too confusing as they assume ParkingEye have made mistakes, or the defendant has some legit reason somewhere. It seems like it would take me hours to compile a defence with no guarantee because all my defence is is I did not see any signs. East for the law to call me a lier and assume I did. I could earn more working in time it takes me to fight this, so makes sense to pay it unless it can be guaranteed I am not in a contract and dont have to pay.

A colleague I was with paid up because she could not be bothered to fight even though she didn't see the signs. A third colleague with me who also did not see the signs didn't even get a PCN the lucky dab. He arrived on a moped but he parked in a full space, I dont see why he should be exempt. It was tipping down that day though, which explains why all 3 of us didn't see the signs.

Its unbelievable this situation exists, the law should not allow people to be bullied into paying. I can't believe these companies can legally operate this way, due to all the innocent people paying up when its not their fault at all.

Coupon-mad

Don't pay and be a victim of a scam, despite being here & knowing these are winnable.

So basically point 1 and 2 really confuses me. I totally undertand point 2 if someone sees the sign in point 1. But if they dont see the signs in point 1, then point 2 is not applicable as of course they will park, they saw no signs.

So its still unclear whether the law will say I am in a contract just because there are signs (which means the court is saying I am a lier because if I am not a lier then I am not in a contract), OR if the law states that I am not in a contract as there is no evidence of me seeing any signs.

That pretty much sums up most decisions about private parking charges. We see 99% wins here, usually focussed on the fact that there was no contract agreed.

Points 1 and 2 are implied. So I'd like to know if the law says people can enter implied contracts.

Yes.

Read ParkingEye v Beavis - the actual decision.

Yes, you can accept a contract by performance (the act of parking) but only if the signs are clear, prominent and there to be seen.

infocom

but only if the signs are clear, prominent and there to be seen.

I would think they are. I dont think I can argue this. There are signs there I am not disputing it. I just did not see them at the time I went there. Only when I received the PCN with images of them all, and then visited Google Maps. The route I took through the car park and where I parked meant I did not see any, I was not in front of any. If you then walked from my car to the building there was none along that path. I showed them this but Popla still refused my appeal. It would be a matter of opinion only whether the signs are "clear, prominent and there to be seen". A judge could easily say they are and therefore I am in the wrong even though I never saw them and so did not enter a contract.

Redx

and therein is the arguments for and against , neatly summed up for a judge to decide

if you read the BEAVIS case as mentioned above, you would know that those signs followed LORD DENNINGS RED HAND RULE (plentiful , easy to read and not ambiguous)

the very fact of what you have just said in your story indicates that the signage is poor and inadequate and not up to the BEAVIS standard, which is usually the case, and so your argument above forms part of your defence, as a driver