CPM poor signage - claim form

Coupon-mad

Where is PACE v Lengyel?  You weren't given that link to a decent (relevant) evidence transcript for fun! 

Johnersh told you why it is useful for your case and what to say about the contract being void for impossibility.

SlashDot

Coupon-mad said:

Where is PACE v Lengyel?  You weren't given that link to a decent (relevant) evidence transcript for fun! 

Johnersh told you why it is useful for your case and what to say about the contract being void for impossibility.

Apologies, realised I have a section on it but not the actual exhibit 

SlashDot

Claimant arguments here and evidence here. Redacted.

Coupon-mad

Where is their landowner authority?  The contract with the landowner?  We need to see that.

Why cover up Jack Chapman's signature, this is something you should be attacking, as per all the hundreds of UKCPM Jack Chapman threads!

Why have you moved away from the protection of the POFA, given you were the hirer lessee?  You have admitted to driving in the WS, which is usually a good idea, but in your case you were a hirer/lessee and they won't have complied with para 13 and 14 of the POFA, because the NTH won't have enclosed the documents the law requires.

I am saying the above because I think you are in danger of losing if you write that you parked and went over the road and to the cinema for nearly 3 hours - this is 'fly parking' and Judges will not be on your side.  Playing Devil's Advocate (and to tell you the truth) I would never have parked in a private car park to jaunt over the road to somewhere completely different - sorry to say but on what planet do drivers think that is OK - just because they never got 'done' before?

The Judge will look at what you did and see the sign near the car in their photos, and the fact the bay has a number in it so it clearly has a purpose for someone, and you could be on a sticky wicket here without the POFA and the 'void for impossibility' argument...unless it was dark and the sign was not able to be seen (clearly not, due to the evidence photos).

Johnersh

Parked in a marked bay, with a sign against a rail which is visible as you drive in (before you seing into a marked bay) definitely means you should have seen the signs inmho.

I agree there is potential for the o/p to be received unsympathetically.  That means the arguments need to be good: Whether you should have been there is irrelevant if there is nothing capable of forming a contract or a breach in the law. Don't let the defence become scattergun or poorly articulated, else none of what you say will stand. 

Coupon-mad

I think you need to remove the narrative about who was driving and what they did.  And show us that landowner authority!

Johnersh

That statement contains no evidence at all. It has nothing that is within the personal knowledge of the statement maker. It refers throughout to "my company refer the court"

Contrary to what appears at para 1, no effort is made at any point to discern who did what or how those sources of information were derived - e.g. Who took the photo?

It's a generic statement even the exhibit GSL1 reflects the origin gladstones Solicitors Ltd, not the statement maker. 

What confidence can the court have in a statement where the maker has amended the relevant declaration from "I believe the facts are true" to "the claimant believes". Why change that, unless there is reason to do so. It either contains information the maker is not content with or which he cannot personally verify. You are entitled to know which.

Further if he's not attending to clarify, then I'd suggest it's unsafe to rely upon it. It would be entirely possible to prepare that statement properly or to call evidence from the employees involved (those photographing or sending tickets etc) it is their choice not to. 

SlashDot

Thanks for the comments all - I'll respond back properly after I finish work.
I realised I made a stupid mistake this morning whilst scanning, attached is the contract. It's already been redacted by GS, so presume it is fine to post as is?

Le_Kirk

With regards to the contract, it fails the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore is not a valid contract.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

Check out the link shown and see if that contract is valid.

nosferatu1001

Its not your job to worry about their contract.  You only concern yourself with YOUR data. Nothing else. 

Have you checked the company names are correct, its valid, the site is exactly as you would expect, etc. DO your own diligence.