I WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snakes_Belly

The judge sounds like one of these contractors that quotes an inflated figure because they don't really want the work. The system is probably creaking badly with all the family cases and they are pushing these cases to settle.

Your case will probably be heard by a different judge next time who may look at things differently.

D_P_Dance

There are also no doubt thousands of eviction cases to be heard,   The government have granted rent bludgers a licence to rip off landlords.

Snakes_Belly

Grimghast said:

this is the sign they say is acceptable mounted on a post 8 to 10 feet high

How could anyone read the terms and condition on that sign? The judge wanted the case settled IMO. Another judge may see this very differently. 

Grimghast

I hope so!

Coupon-mad

If the POFA wasn't mentioned, did she find as fact that she thought you were the driver, or was she utterly clueless as to whether you were the keeper or driver?  Sounds like a Judge who hasn't yet come across private parking scam cases.

At a full hearing you are hopefully likely to find you get a Judge who will actually look at the POFA and their fatal (if you were not driving) admittance that they are not able to claim keeper liability.  However, do be aware some Judges might ask directly ''we you driving''?  in which case POFA is out the window.

Grimghast

nothing was mentioned about the pofa or who was driving, judge said "we see these cases all the time" which led me to believe at first that she was aware of the scams but as it went on it seemed more like she was utterly clueless.
currently I am being pursued as the keeper the driver has not been identified.
If the the judge asks directly who the driver was I take it I have to reveal their identity then?

Fruitcake

You don't have to identify the driver, but the judge might then decide on the balance of probabilities that the keeper was the driver.

Honest answers are required. These can in reality only be, Yes, No, or I do not know/remember. If the latter, you would need to show that several people have use of the vehicle/on the insurance etcetera.

Of course, the judge may not ask at all, but either way, you should concentrate on all your other points.

Snakes_Belly

I agree with Fruitcake. I don't think that a contract could be formed by that signage. You would need a ladder to read the terms and conditions.  I would take a look at what it says in the IPC Code of Practice about height of signage. 

Is the image from Excel?

Snakes_Belly

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4208652,-1.2848802,3a,75y,138.44h,74.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJk4rS7He-KCCp6ELsrMBPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Took a look on google maps and I cannot see how anyone could read the terms and conditions (detailed small writing) of that sign. Look at the people in comparison with the sign.

There is a sign on entry however you would have turned in before you would see it and you would not be able to stop on double yellow lines to read it. 

You also have to question why it has taken them so long to bring this to court. They are an extremely litigious company (Sheffield County Court must be aware of that) so why wait so long? 

There have been cases on here where there has been a knock on effect from the bad parking of another driver that have been dismissed.    

Grimghast

Snakes_Belly said:

I agree with Fruitcake. I don't think that a contract could be formed by that signage. You would need a ladder to read the terms and conditions.  I would take a look at what it says in the IPC Code of Practice about height of signage. 

Is the image from Excel?

the image is one VCS took on the day there is nothing in the IPC code of practice about height of signs just he usual guff about  The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the sign and should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely position of the Motorist in relation to the sign. which it clearly isnt although the judge yesterday said they were adequate! 
Im wondering if this judge was looking at the same photos we are!
Bad parking of another driver is what caused all this in the first place so hopefully that is something else the judge will take into account, the fact that by the time the driver has parked up got out to look at the signs they have already breached the terms and conditions before even knowing what they are! surely it is a breach of CRA to then impose that term on a motorist when they werent able to comply to start with! does it fall fall of the unfair terms part? I would argue that it is does.