Claim Form received, help please

Partypeople

And check your facts, as this is wrong:[/QUOTE]

I'm confused then as BPA have excel listed a d the car park close to where I wished recently was managed by then a d the sign stayed they were

KeithP

Whilst Excel Parking Services Ltd and Vehicle Control Services Ltd are both members of the BPA, neither of them are members of the BPA's Approved Operators Scheme.

Partypeople

Thanks for the responses so far. So I have now received paperwork stating that the case is progressing to court if the claiment completes the relevant forms.


I have received the reduced payment letter as seems to be suggested in the forum. Which I am still refusing to pay.


Having submitting the Subject Access Request and complaintI received a response on the day of the deadline. I see communication between VCS and the venue shortly after the appeal, yet they did not respond to my appeal for a further 3 months, which I feel doesnt fit the 28 days deadline of the appeal response. The are claiming that on the day of the notice issued that I was not permitted to park as this was a setup day. This is something that I was not aware of otherwise I clearly would not have parked there as I was under no doubt at the time that I did have permission.



Additionally there is no signage at the entrance to state this site is a pay and display. The only sign states event day parking charges, but as this was not an event day the sign was blank next to the costs. There is nothing to identify that other times pay and display is in operation, moving through the entrance and into the parking areas there is no signage visable form the photos I have taken. I will be revisiting the site to take a video to use as evidence also


So I know I now have to produce a witness statement.
Any further advice or comments would be great

Partypeople

Ive been reading about witness statments and skeleton arguments. I know I have to submit my Witness Statment by 14th January to court and claiment, however Im not sure where the correct address is for the VCS, Ive had no communication form any solicitors either so Im a little confused. Also do you normally receive the claiments witness statments before submitting the defence witness statment?


Apologises, Im getting very anxious about this and just want to be in the best position on the day.

Partypeople

Sorry yes, I made the ammendents suggested and submitted my defence

Partypeople

Sorry yes, I made the ammendents suggested and submitted my defence

I started this thread when I received the claim form.

Coupon-mad

I know I have to submit my Witness Statment by 14th January to court and claiment, however Im not sure where the correct address is for the VCS, Ive had no communication form any solicitors either so Im a little confused.

You send it and your supplementary WS and case law & statute law exhibits and photo/video evidence, and your costs schedule, to the local court and to the VCS address shown on the claim form.

Also do you normally receive the claimants witness statements before submitting the defence witness statement?

Usually yes, but only just.

But you don't need to wait to see it, because their WS is already here to read on all the other VCS threads ahead of you. Search the forum for ANOTHER VCS ONE BITES THE DUST and copy what others did in demolishing VCS' template WS in their own WS.

Partypeople

Ok so heres what I have so far, I'm really feeling swamped with this currently and at the end of my whits, with anxiety taken over me. I need to submit to court and claiment by 14th Jan so wanting this done in next few days. Thanks everyone so far. So heres the witness statment and bits ive got. Still not received their bundle but I think its gone to my old address and will find out for sure tomorrow. Im aware the formatting needs looking at. Thanks



CLAIM No: x

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

-and-

x (Defendant)

Witness Statement

I, x, and will say as follows:

1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented and have no experience with Court proceedings. I trust the court will excuse my inexperience if I have not set out the documents in the way that the Claimant has. I feel it is necessary at this point to highlight that I suffer from Dyslexia and Iren’s Syndrome in addition to anxiety and depression which has been significantly raised throughout this process.

2. I make this witness statement in anticipation for the court hearing scheduled for 29th January in my defence of the Claimants’ claim.

3. I intend to put forward my case with the following witness statement and the attached paginated bundle of documents marked Exhibits 1-XX** to which I will refer to later in this document.
4. I received an email confirmation of employment from x for the Bass Fest 2018 event held at the Don Valley Bowl. The confirmation email gave information for the free parking arrangements and instructions for submitting vehicle registration details in advance. I provided my vehicle details within the required timescales, please see exhibit 1 A and B.
5. On 3/8/18 at shortly after 10am I arrived at Fly DSA Arena Car Park via the Broughton Lane entrance. I observed a white board, see exhibit 2 A-D that read “Event Parking Charges” with all sections of the board been blank. There was no further easily visible signage indicating Private Property or of any parking restrictions or conditions in place that were clear to any driver entering the site. This is in breach of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice

I proceeded to drive my vehicle down to the Box Office area to confirm the location of the staff area that I was to park free of charge as agreed in the email correspondence whilst working for the Bass Fest event held at the Don Valley Bowl. I spoke with a male member of staff and explained the information received and the location of the staff area where I was entitles to park. The member of staff instructed me that I was to park in Car Park B and gave me the direction as to the location of this. I followed these instructions and parked my vehicle close to the floodlights which were clearly marked as “Car Park B”, see exhibit 2 E and F.
5.1 Acting in good faith and following all prior instructions received I left my car parked under the sole belief and condition that I had legitimate and without any doubt, that I had sufficient permission to do so.My sole reason for parking at this location was that the above agreement was in place of which there was no reasonable doubt, for the sole purpose of working at the adjoining site owned by the same landowner.

6. Having secured my car I promptly walked back towards the Box Office area and into the Don Valley Bowl to the work site office where I reported for work at 10:15 where I met with my colleague Mr x. As we walked towards the Don Valley Arena area to begin work, whilst walking towards this area Mr x asked me where I had parked my car which he then informed me that as the Don Valley site was still a work site that there was parking available next to the site office and offered to drive me to my car so that I could relocate it as it was more convenient for me to access throughout the day.
7. Mr x drove me to my car at the Fly DSA Arena Car Park B at approximately 10:30. As I approached my car I found a red notice attached to my windscreen, see exhibit 3 which clearly reads “this is not a parking charge notice”. At this time Mr x informed me he had just observed a van move away from the area at speed and exit the car park. I then drove my car to the Don Valley Bowl , Please refer to Exhibit 4, Witness Statement as evidence.
7.1 Upon returning to the site office at the Don Valley Bowl I informed my employer, Mr x of the red notice left on my windscreen. Mr x informed me to email him the reference number after the event to get this resolved, which I emailed on 8/8/18 see exhibit xx
8. Between the 5/8/18 and 7/8/18 I attempted multiple times to access the website given on the red/black notice, www.myparkingcharge.co.uk to discuss the issue. Despite numerous attempts using different possible combination of possible reference numbers (as the reference was not written clearly) the website stated there were no records. see exhibit xx
9. On 17/8/18 upon receiving the PCN via post I submitted my appeal via the www.myparkingcharge.co.uk website stating that I had permission to park at the time the PCN was issued.
10. On 5/9/18 I received an email response requesting further information to support the appeal, requesting evidence of the communication I had received prior to the event regarding permission to park. I submitted the relevant information, exhibit 1 A and B via the www.myparkingcharge.co.uk website on 6/9/18
11. From 21/09/18 to 31/12/18 I received several email messages received from an Excel Parking Services Limited, see Exhibit xxx, stating that the appeal was on hold but no further details provided. As a consumer this caused confusion as all other communication came from Vehicle Control Services Limited.
12. On 4/1/19 I received an email response regarding the appeal decision, again from Excel Parking Services Limited, exhibit xx. Thiss response contained factual errors stating “We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 31/12/2018” when the appeal was sent 17/08/18, additionally the response did not provide reasoning as to the response been well without the 28 day deadline to respond to the appeal.
13. I sent an official complaint letter, see exhibit xxxx, to the address shown on the footer of the paperwork received and following the instruction on the reverse of the PCN which stated “If you wish to complain, you must do so to us in the first instance at the address below” see exhibit xx
13.1 The official compliant highlighted that my personal details had been electronically sent via unsecured or encrypted methods. In addition to the timescales involved under the VCS appeals process and those required under IPC Code of conduct Section 6.1(e) had not been followed and included factual errors in the appeal response including that the appeal was submitted 31/12/2018, when in fact it was submitted 17/8/18 see exhibit xxxx The complaint also included a Subject access Request in addition to other key documentation relevant to the case. I did not receive any response to this and No information was provided at this time.
14. On 22/5/19 [FONT=&quot]I emailed my [/FONT]Letter Before Claim Response to” [EMAIL="litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk"]litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk[/EMAIL]” this included a Subject access Request in addition to other key documentation relevant to the case. No information was provided at this time.
15. On 1/8/19 I emailed a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office highlighting my concerns that two previous Subject Access Requests had not been acted upon and that sensitive personal data had been sent electronically in non secure and none encrypted manner.
16. On 1/8/19 I emailed a Subject Access Request to [EMAIL="dataprotection@vehiclecontrol.co.uk"]dataprotection@vehiclecontrol.co.uk[/EMAIL], This was responded to 31/8/19. Email correspondence within the SAR shows communication from representatives of the FLY DSA arena to VCS stating that no permission was in place on the date the PCN was issued, yet I was not sent a response from appeal until 4/1/19 and no explanation has been communicated to me.
17. On 6/11/19 I received an email response from x, Case Officer at the Information Commissioner’s Office, see exhibit xxxx which read “I can advise that, regarding the information rights requests that you have made, it is likely VCS has not complied with its data protection obligations in this instance. It appears that VCS did not respond within the statutory calendar month timeframe. Organisations have one month to respond . Next Steps I can advise that I have written to VCS and requested that it respond to you directly and as soon as possible.” I have received no response regarding this from VCS.

photos of the site - showing lack of signage


https://www.dropbox.com/s/7fitjk55qg43ga1/Photos%20Evidence.pdf?dl=0


this is the signage they are using as proof. So do I have any grounds for argument that it doesnt state anywheer that there is a pay and display in operation? The only way I know was revisiting the site for photos I saw the machine tucked at the side but no signs referring to it or its location?


https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5dfh48cqkwbwu5/signage.pdf?dl=0




Then after Ive got the supplementary statement below to print after.

Partypeople

Then after Ive got the supplementary statement below to print after.

Supplementary Witness Statement

The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'.

1. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

2.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

The Beavis case is against this Claim
3. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.

3.1. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

3.2. In the Beavis case it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

3.3. At para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

3.4. At para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim
4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim
5. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

5.1. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

5.2. That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.

5.3. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

5.3.1. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

5.3.2. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

5.3.3. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

5.3.4. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply to this claim.

5.3.5. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

5.4. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The CMA Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

5.5. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

6. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due to the adding of the false £60 costs to £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs.

6.1. The Judge determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' further, in issuing his Orders striking out several £160 parking claims without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

7. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

8. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

9. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.



Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


I feel that the information below Ive cut and paste should go in but unsure where it would best sit?

Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] suggesting that not reading a sign will not stop a contract from being formed.

In reality, the court of appeal judgement found exactly the opposite and that a contract may not be formed if the signage was not sufficiently prominent as to be visible from the parking spot.

6.4 This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the Claimant’s case:

6.5 This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

6.7 The claimant’s signs are clearly forbidding

Any other key cases that jump out as Ive read lots on here and Im drowning?
Thanks in advance

Le_Kirk

with all sections of the board been blank

Typo, better as : -

with all sections of the board [strike]been[/strike] being blank

This is in breach of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice

Should be: -

This is in breach of the [strike]Independent Parking Committee[/strike] International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice