Advice re blue badge owner

Fruitcake

I think Thornton Vs Shoe Lane might be applicable here.

Judge Lord Denning, he of the "Red Hand Rule" said,

"The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise. He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late."

I think NCP Vs HMRC also applies. The contract is accepted when the green button is pressed to obtain a ticket. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, both apply.  The transcript from HMRC v NCP is in a thread called HMRC 1 NCP 0.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, both apply.  The transcript from HMRC v NCP is in a thread called HMRC 1 NCP 0.

Hello again, Coupon-mad.

 I (think I) found the relevant thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6004010/ncp-appeal-tax-man-1-ncp-nil/p1

I found https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/854.html and that contains National Car Parks Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2019] EWCA Civ 854
Is this the correct way to reference this case?

Thanks!

[Deleted User]

Fruitcake said:

I think Thornton Vs Shoe Lane might be applicable here.

Judge Lord Denning, he of the "Red Hand Rule" said,

"The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise. He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late."

I think NCP Vs HMRC also applies. The contract is accepted when the green button is pressed to obtain a ticket. 

Hello Fruitcake, thanks for your reply.

Please can you explain how to reference the above in my counterclaim? I did a google and I can find the below. Is it correct please?

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2

Thanks.

[Deleted User]

My new point 32 is below. I've put new information in bold print. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you!

32.  It is averred that the overall presentation of this information away from the parking bays was likely to deceive the average motorist, thus fulfilling the definition of a “misleading action” under regulation 5 (2)(a) of the Regulations at 20(b). Since it would have been easy to present the information properly and/or to exempt the Defendant and immediately cancel the PCN, it is reasonable to presume that this deception was deliberate. The Claimant offers a tariff that applies to cars that park before 6pm and a different tariff that applies to drivers who park after 6pm, and the Claimant have used that as a 'concealed pitfall or trap' (a phrase from the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis about a parking charge situation of poor practice that would not have been enforceable) to generate wholly improper parking charge notices. Their machine ticket printed an expiry time of 6pm, giving just five minutes parking instead of the advertised hour.  By any reasonable interpretation, this is a misleading action under the CPUTRS. The Claimant's reply to the Defendant before they filed this claim, compounded this action by including the preposterous idea that a driver arriving and paying for an hour before 6pm is expected to return to the car park at 6pm and buy a new ticket, despite having paid the advertised rate. Applying the authority in National Car Parks Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2019] EWCA Civ 854 (ref: paras 16, 18) affirmed that the contract was brought into being when the green button was pressed. In Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking (1970) EWCA Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls stated that "The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise. He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late.".

KeithP

By any reasonable interpretation, this is a misleading action under the CPUTRS.

I haven't checked, but have you previously spelt out what the CPUTRs are?

[Deleted User]

KeithP said:

By any reasonable interpretation, this is a misleading action under the CPUTRS.

I haven't checked, but have you previously spelt out what the CPUTRs are?

Hi Keith. 

No I haven't, I've no idea what CPUTRs are (i'm googling now) and I copied the phrase from a reply from @Coupon-mad.

What point in my defence would I need to spell out what this is please?

KeithP

CPUTRs is shorthand for Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Perhaps that sentence I quoted earlier should read... 
By any reasonable interpretation, this is a misleading action under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs).

[Deleted User]

KeithP said:

CPUTRs is shorthand for Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Is the below the relevant section? Where do I need to spell this out in my defence?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284442/oft1008.pdf

7.1 The CPRs prohibit misleading actions and misleading omissions (as detailed in regulations 5 and 6),16 which cause or are likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.
 
 Misleading Omissions (regulation 6) Giving insufficient information about the product 7.12 Practices may also mislead by failing to give consumers the information they need to make an informed choice (in relation to a product). This occurs when practices: • omit or hide material information, or provide it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner, and • the average consumer takes, or is likely to take, a different decision as a result.

KeithP

I'm not suggesting that you need to explain exactly how their actions conflict with the CPUTRs, that can be left for your Witness Statement. 
I'm just suggesting that the initialisation needs to be spelt out fully at least once in your Defence.
I added a suggested change in my earlier post but you may have missed it.