PCN letters not recieved

Coupon-mad

How have the terms on the sign not been breached?

How old and unreadable are the signs?

That's what to show the Judge, not the ANPR symbol, as they can use either.

Redx

2021hindsight wrote: »

Lol...No, I'm not saying taking the pictures was unlawful, I'm suggesting that 1. Because the contract is invalid, the terms and conditions of it have not been breached. 2. And if the terms and conditions have not been breached then VCS had no authority to request the driver details from DVLA.

Yes you did , you clearly stated the pictures were taken unlawfully by the CEO,s

The parking contract may be unenforceable due to some technical breach , but it's neither unlawful nor invalid, you need to elaborate on how the terms have been breached, if at all, or not been breached, but you cannot state that it's invalid

2) you will struggle to get the DVLA to admit that , we down here haven't managed that argument and a sheriff would say that's up to the defendant to argue in a different claim after investigation by the DVLA and ICO

The sheriff will deal with the case in front of them

For a contract , it's

The requisite elements that must be established to demonstrate the formation of a legally binding contract are (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) consideration; (4) mutuality of obligation; (5) competency and capacity; and, in certain circumstances, (6) a written instrument.

So if it's forbidding signage

No contract , due to
No offer
No acceptance
No consideration

waamo

The wording on the signs will be far more important. Are the terms and conditions clear? Does the sign actually offer parking? Many just say "No Parking". You can't form a contract to do something that isn't allowed.

2021hindsight

The signs indicate that the area is enforced and monitored using ANPR/CCTV, if the sign is the contract, then surely for that contract to be deemed fair and informative, everything on it must be accurate. If the area is not controlled by by ANPR/CCTV then it is inaccurate. The sign, has to contain all the information the driver requires to make a decision, and if the driver establishes that the area is not controlled by CCTV or ANPR, then the sign can be deemed to be not relevant to the area in which they are parked. If a contract is inaccurate, how can it be fair? And if the symbol is not relevant, why is it there?....I'm trying to incorporate so many strands in the defence, I thought this was promising but I guess not. The area in which the thing happened is so ambiguous, sometimes I'm confident and then it crumbles and I'm !!!!!!!! myself.

2021hindsight

The sign says 'valid parking permits and authorised vehicles only'. And sorry, redx, I didnt see your previous post, I did say that...my mistake, i shouldnt have said unlawful, i should have been clearer about my meaning. and your rules for a contract are very helpful, i suppose my argument relates to the clarity of a contract, about the need for it to be clear and free from ambiguity...and the symbol and the words ANPR/CCTV introduce ambiguity.

Redx

So signs don't reflect a CEO using a handheld camera , too many cases have passed through the courts for that argument to hold up , especially when councils and police use cameras and dashcams , some are handheld or bodyworn , I am not sure there is a pictogram for a handheld camera

I think a judge or sheriff will just say , no traction , move on

The fact that it's forbidding signage means no contract because it isn't offered , so it's a penalty under Beavis etc and so is trespassing which only a landowner can issue , for a small sum

That's my understanding of it

Coupon-mad

i suppose my argument relates to the clarity of a contract, about the need for it to be clear and free from ambiguity...and the symbol and the words ANPR/CCTV introduce ambiguity.

I think that one line is worth including (as part of a defence point about the signs) but mainly you'd be saying about the signs that 'an average driver' would be wholly unaware that the area parked in was private due to inadequate signage.

If it's that bad then it's hardly surprising ore than one PCN was incurred by more than one driver over a period of time when the keeper received no letters at all and the family was oblivious to any contract or charge.

And major on the fact there are 4 possible drivers and how unlikely it is that the defendant was the driver on these multiple occasions. As already said, this is vital in a Scotland court case. see if you can track down that solicitor and if he does any pro bono work or knows of a barrister who can take it on pro bono, using the previous case that solicitor won and showing how different the facts were in Mackie.

2021hindsight

Forbidding signage, I'm not familiar with that concept. The sign also says 'terms and conditions apply', which most contracts say but has no actual box or section which clearly highlights what those therms and conditions are...I've been reading about the VCS Smyth Street case which was chucked out, the judge was very firm with regard to the evidence of clarity, or lack of it, in the signage, and its importance in distance contracts.