Who is the defendant at court stage? Driver/ keeper

Coupon-mad

They don't appear to have breached any of the keeper liability law that I can see as they wrote to my dad, we just werent getting any correspondence due to the incorrect address. But I will re-read it to see about driver/ keeper rules.

OK. Don't assume PPM got the keeper liability paperwork right in wording (i.e. the first letter, the Notice to Keeper that was sent out a month after the event, has to have wording as per para 8 of the POFA).

In addition, EVEN IF the NTK was worded correctlt, without 'adequate notice' of the parking charge (on signs that were clear & obvious where you parked) there can be no keeper liability. This is because the POFA sets out some basics including the existence of 'adequate notice' AND a 'relevant contract or obligation' upon the driver.

Remember to tell your Dad that a Judge WILL NOT know this law inside out, so it's for him, the Defendant, to walk the Judge through the sections about that.

In his WS, your Dad would be explaining your story (or you can be a separate witness if you wish - therefore two witness statements will be needed) and use some transcripts of similar cases about unclear signs. For those, read the Parking Prankster 'case law' and 'more case law' pages and find some.

I would also definitely use PACE v Lengyel from there and possibly PCM v Bull if your signs had similar wording to that case when you read it.

Then you don't even have to write the words from scratch because you could just search the forum for one someone wrote earlier, using 'Lengyel witness statement' as your keywords.

I also have google maps screen shots of the road showing where the two small signs where on a very long road (none of which are anywhere near where I was parked).

To accompany that evidence, also use this transcript, a new one from August 2019, which is about a residential area with just 2 unclear signs which were also (probably like yours?) 'forbidding' parking without a permit, rather than offering it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7dnnazj9iqpwnan/Pace%20Recovery%20%26%20Storage%20Ltd%20v%20Francis%20%2815.08.19%29%20JUDGMENT.odt?dl=0&m=

''but it seems to me that the size of the signage (18 inches by 24 inches) is too small for that area and the location of the sign is on the top of the wall where, if it is a sunny day, for example, the motorist would have more difficulty than he or she otherwise would if the sign were placed lower down and was larger.

Now, when it comes to the wording of the sign, the wording is that “Warning, Private Land, 24 hour Enforcement Zone”, “This is a No Parking Area” in big font, and then it goes into much smaller front, which says, “If you park in this area you accept that you will be issued with a”, in then huge font “Charge of £100” and then it reduces to smaller font “payable within 28 days of issue.” In my judgment, this is not sufficient to put the matter in the way of a contract. It is more of a penalty because of the size of the font. It is saying really “This is a no parking area”, so that is an absolute prohibition, but it is then followed by “If you park” in this very small font, and then “a charge of £100” in far bigger font.

[...]the motorist’s eye, in my view, would be distracted by the electricity box and again, in my judgment, the font is not sufficiently noticeable. The claimant was subject to the IPC Code of Practice and Part E of Schedule 1 of that Code says that:

“The size of text on a sign will be determined by a number of factors such as the position of it, to whom it is aimed and the information that it needs to convey. Text should be of such a size and in a font that can easily be read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

In my judgment, cars entering the area, when they begin, before they begin to enter the land cannot see the sign at all. The sign can only be seen once they are on the land and, in my judgment, it would be difficult to see it from the car itself. It can only be seen if the motorist gets out of the car and goes close to the wall. In this instance, the motorist was unlikely to go close to the wall on his side because he parked in such a way that he would not do that. So, he can only see the sign if he goes round to the back of his car or the sign on the other side.

To have only two signs on that land I know there are two others, but four signs altogether. But to have only two signs on that front area where the motorist will exit from that front (he is not going to go down the other end) to have just two signs of that size with that particular wording seems to me that the criteria in ParkingEye v Beavis is not met. I take into account the Code of Practice as well and the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.

So, for all those reasons, I conclude that there was no contract that this motorist entered into pursuant to ParkingEye v Beavis.''

Katie1111

thanks so much for this

Katie1111

Hi,

Just wanted to say a massive thanks for your help.

Had our court day today and we WON -
Wooo! It was against Parking and Property management (BW Legal). They approached us prior to entering and offered us a deal to settle the original fee which we declined.

The little rascals had returned to the site afterwards and put up signs, although they didn’t help their case by leaving the ladder up against the lamp post. But had actually used this as their evidence! Doh!

The judge dismissed the case on there being inadequate signage (there were two small signs on a long road) so I definitely think that the judgement that was mentioned above helped.

Thanks again! Great start to the weekend :-)

yotmon

Good to hear that you won your case.

I would have liked the judge to have slated BW for attempting to include evidence in his/her court knowing fair well that the photographs of the signs had been taken after the event. Good result though..

Le_Kirk

Brilliant, well done.