Another win for MSE

Coupon-mad

Wow, you have their own evidence showing something that they DIDN'T take a close-up photo of?    I agree with nosferatu1001!

You need to state in your WS that you've looked at the 'evidence' photos provided and you can see what looks like a permit on the windscreen and an unmarked road.  There is a small, unreadable sign that appears to relate to the flats/bins but was never taken to relate to parking, as the writing is so minuscule and not prominent, as onerous terms must be (Consumer Rights Act 2015 re prominence and transparency of consumer contract terms). 

It seems the ticketer took a photo at a deliberate distance and skewed angle and you believe there was a permit on display. 

But even if there are further close up photos, proving that this was not a permit, the car was authorised/permitted anyway, because (who/what?), and the signs are so unremarkable that no visitor would have thir attention drawn to them as parking signs.  No contract was agreed, no parking charge was known, and there was no 'meeting of minds'.

Chefdave

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, you have their own evidence showing something that they DIDN'T take a close-up photo of?    I agree with nosferatu1001!

You need to state in your WS that you've looked at the 'evidence' photos provided and you can see what looks like a permit on the windscreen and an unmarked road.  There is a small, unreadable sign that appears to relate to the flats/bins but was never taken to relate to parking, as the writing is so minuscule and not prominent, as onerous terms must be (Consumer Rights Act 2015 re prominence and transparency of consumer contract terms). 

It seems the ticketer took a photo at a deliberate distance and skewed angle and you believe there was a permit on display. 

But even if there are further close up photos, proving that this was not a permit, the car was authorised/permitted anyway, because (who/what?), and the signs are so unremarkable that no visitor would have thir attention drawn to them as parking signs.  No contract was agreed, no parking charge was known, and there was no 'meeting of minds'.

Thanks that's very helpful, it's almost like you have the ability to spin lead into gold

nosferatu1001

No, its just seeing the deliberate ways they manipulate things

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

It is MUCH easier than you are making it and we have never had a lay person say WS stage is beyond them.

There you go, two chunks of advice and a quoted poem from D_P_D, what could go wrong now?  It is not hours of research, it's a simple copy, past edit submit.  Of course, you have to sharpen all the pencils and lay them all out in alphabetical order of their sharpness and size!

Chefdave

I've still been stressing about this and spoke to a friend who was eager to get her friend's advice as she's an ex-barrister. First of all she said this forum is an excellent source of information so props to you guys, secondly she advised to keep it really simple and direct for the court's benefit.

Their claim on the PCN is that I wasn't displaying a permit, not an incorrect or invalid permit but that I wasn't displaying one altogether. I have the receipt from the hotel and also a photo of the car with the permit sitting on top of the dashboard (which hopefully the judge will accept as proof, she seems to think they will) In the WS she advised to keep it short and sweet (which suits me) and address their argument head on; I was in the car park on the material date, I had a reason for being there and I was also displaying a permit which I purchased from the B&B. I'll try and produce another draft later (even though it can take me ages sometimes to string a sentence together) and post it here for critique

Umkomaas

 (even though it can take me ages sometimes to string a sentence together

Don't doubt yourself, you've done a pretty good job here in relaying a concise, coherent prėcis of what your friend and the ex-barrister said. Good stuff. 

D_P_Dance

Have you written this up on TripAdviser/Trivago/booking,com,/hotels.com/Facebook etc. 

Chefdave

No, it's not really the B&B that I stayed at's fault as it's a different B&B's parking company who made the claim. It's a communal car park but they haven't divided it up very clearly. The car park is frankly a bit of a mess

D_P_Dance

I would, nevertheless do as advised.   

Chefdave

I just received an email back from BW Legal who said their client would be willing to settle for £160, depending on how my WS goes I might accept