CPM Parking Appeal Rejected

Mana2019

Jenni_D said:

Will Google Street View for the location show any relevant photos? (There's a slider/control that lets you go back in time).

Good idea, here is what the scene looked like during daytime...no streetlights or lighting around the sign for me to see it visible (and it's in small writing).

Mana2019

So I've updated the WS with the exhibits and references...

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvEYi0ZeGNPPgYlfRxDMuNDG36HdUQ

Is this enough? (I still need to tidy up the formatting)

Also do I leave the ParkingEye Limited v Beavis paragraphs?

1505grandad

Have not read WS but notice claimant stated as UKPCM throughout  -  including index.

Mana2019

1505grandad said:

Have not read WS but notice claimant stated as UKPCM throughout  -  including index.

Thank you for spotting that, corrected that error.

Fruitcake

Are the images ones you took with embedded date and time data (metadata), or are you using GSV images?
If the former, time and date stamps need to be visible on the images, and must match the metadata.
If the latter, you need to ensure that the image capture date is showing, as well as the GSV URL.

Where you mention the signs in the dark, I would add the word, unreadable.

Are there any close up images of signs in the claimant's WS/bundle. If not, what proof is there of Ts and Cs that would be readable in the dark?

Do the signs inform a motorist how to obtain a permit, especially outside normal office hours? If not, then displaying a permit would be a contract term void for impossibility, which is a breach of the CRA 2015 consideration of fairness.
(The CRA must be considered, even if neither party has brought it to the court's attention beforehand).

Mana2019

Fruitcake said:

Are the images ones you took with embedded date and time data (metadata), or are you using GSV images?
If the former, time and date stamps need to be visible on the images, and must match the metadata.
If the latter, you need to ensure that the image capture date is showing, as well as the GSV URL.

They are all from GSV. I went back and checked that the two closest times Google viewed the area is March 2019 and August 2020.

The incident happened August 2019. March 2019 GSV have different looking signs up around the block (same places/locations though) with a much bigger, larger font of "Resident Permit Holders only". But of course, these wasn't the signs that I saw (or photographed).

GSV's August 2020 has the new signs that I saw and photographed by the ticketer. But it's taken August 2020, the Claimant may suggest the signs have changed again or something.

Added the GSV links anyway.

Fruitcake said:

Where you mention the signs in the dark, I would add the word, unreadable.

Added, thanks.

Fruitcake said:

Are there any close up images of signs in the claimant's WS/bundle. If not, what proof is there of Ts and Cs that would be readable in the dark?

There are two photos in the Claimant's WS that has the sign close up.

 https://ibb.co/ZBMDbqC (This one is basically a clean, PDF version they print)

https://ibb.co/TPnfqg4 (The one that was photographed in the night...with flash on)

The T&Cs are not on the sign, it just says "By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all of the Terms and Conditions."
Unless the small writing below was the T&Cs, but I wouldn't know...because it wasn't clear. It doesn't tell me that the small writing IS the T&Cs.

Fruitcake said:

Do the signs inform a motorist how to obtain a permit, especially outside normal office hours? If not, then displaying a permit would be a contract term void for impossibility, which is a breach of the CRA 2015 consideration of fairness.
(The CRA must be considered, even if neither party has brought it to the court's attention beforehand).

No. But it's private property I guess. When I tried to get a permit anyway for the car park shortly after, it's only for certain flats.


====

WS: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvEYi0ZeGNPPgYlfRxDMuNDG36HdUQ

Castle

The dialling codes on the two signs are different.

Mana2019

Castle said:

The dialling codes on the two signs are different.

Wow...well spotted 0845 on the PDF, while 0345 on the photograph!

Still...it's minor. They are both correct, still rings the company - just one of them you'll get charged.

Coupon-mad

But it shows that the PDF is of a later sign. Not relevant evidence at all.

Not the same sign because charging extra for calls to helplines was made illegal a good few years ago.  

Castle

Mana2019 said:

Castle said:

The dialling codes on the two signs are different.

Wow...well spotted 0845 on the PDF, while 0345 on the photograph!

Still...it's minor. They are both correct, still rings the company - just one of them you'll get charged.

It also proves that the 0845 sign wasn't there; despite their "witness" claiming it was.
(0845 numbers have been banned since July 2014).