Armtrac final letter

Le_Kirk

Judge might ask "why did you not ensure the driver (of your car) did not comply with the parking terms and conditions."

Neil1019

To be fair we thought we had made sure if this but the space lines were so faded it was difficult to see, also the spacing between the cars looked ok but the car beside ours was parked on the line. This is a pic of the actual space in questionp

Neil1019

Coupon-mad

 If its just a statement of what happened on the day, I will compile and post as suggested.

It's a statement that confirms at the start, that you were not the driver and that Armtrac can't hold you liable because they failed to comply with the POFA in terms of a compliant NTK, and even if they are able to convince the court that they did, they failed to give 'adequate notice' of the parking charge or any 'relevant obligation' regarding straight parking, because they did not provide 'clear and prominent' signs and lines.

Then you append evidence as you go along, calling it 'exhibit1', 'exhibit2', etc. or the Defendant's initials 1, 2, etc.

Then you write a Summary Costs Assessment.

And a supplementary Witness Statement with the stuff about the fake added £60 'costs' like on all other threads.

Neil1019

I am currently compiling my WS, I have included the failure to comply to the POFA 2012 as my NTK was sent 77 days after the alleged contravention date. I am also including some detail in the very poorly marked lines and am thinking of using De Minimus l, is this wise?
also can you point me in the write direction to find out the regulation surrounding signage, as I want to point the non compliance out in my WS, of course with photographic evidence.

Le_Kirk

On what basis are you using de minimis (full wording de minimis non curat lex - the law does not involve itself with trifles) which is more of a point for a defence than a witness statement and also is used when stating that you or the PDT made a mistake when entering the VRM.
For signage, if you search for an image relating to Beavis, you will see a sign that conforms to Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.

Neil1019

Le_kirk, thank you. Probably best to leave the De Minimus non curat lex out then? The alleged offence was for not wholly parking within the marked bays, however the bays are so poorly marked (photo above), this seems trivial, especially as this was an end bay (I know that I cannot use the fact that there was no loss incurred, even though there was not)

Le_Kirk

I would say so and just use the fact that a company that alleges it "manages" the car park is not doing a very good job if patrons cannot see where to park - and more importantly where not to park!  This is as bad as some of the signage in car parks.

Neil1019

Sounds much better thank Le_kirk. I am trying to find the Beavis sign image but am struggling, don’t suppose you have a link by any chance?

Umkomaas

Google Images can be pretty good!  Give it a try!

Any which show the £85/£100 in large font will suffice. It was this kind of sign that The Law Lords found compelling in finding for PE v BB.