Claim form received, please I need guidance!

pawless_patrol

Thanks everyone. Sorry for getting hang up on stuff. Last question which seems obvious but just trying to be sure: as my parking issue happened in 2017 I should follow the IPC CoP version that was effective at that time or the current one?

Redx

The one in force at the time

Castle

KeithP said:

So here is a lesson on not to believe everything you read on a parking company's website.

That information you have quoted is from their Ethics & the Law webpage.

They go on to say they are bound by the Data Protection Act 1988 and therefore cannot disclose the site owners details. Two things wrong with that 1) the Data Protection Act 1988 was replaced two and a half years ago by the Data Protection Act 2018, and 2) there is nothing in either of those acts forbidding them from telling anyone who owns the parking place (unless the owner is an individual - which is unlikely). 

And there never was a 1988 Act; it should read 1998.

pawless_patrol

Hi everyone, thanks a lot for your comments yesterday. Back again with a second version of points 2 and 3:

   2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3.         The Defendant visited this retail carpark on the day of the alleged incident with her child to browse goods in one of the shops, buy groceries at the supermarket and have a meal at the restaurant, all of which are reasonable activities which are performed by most visitors to this retail park. This resulted in the Defendant unbeknownly overstaying the allowed maximum stay of 90 minutes at the premises.

4.      The maximum allowed time of 90 minutes is unusually short, and it is not enough time to reasonably perform shopping & leisure activities in this retail park without incurring in a breach to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) as set by the Claimant. Although it is understandable that the landowner has the right to decide what is the time limit for free parking on his/her land, this unusual short period should have enforced the need for the signage in place to display prominently the maximum time allocated for free parking and the amount to pay as parking charge. On the contrary, the signage in place is not conspicuous enough and does not comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (CoP) requirements in terms of visibility and font size for a driver to be able to clearly read the T&Cs upon entering the site or parking. In consequence, signage in place fails to engage the attention of visitors and to make them aware of the fact that there is a limited time for free parking and the maximum time allowed as well as failing to appropriately inform that there will be a parking charge in the event of breaching T&Cs.

5.    In addition, the statement on the sign which describes how a driver is bound to abide by T&Cs is shown with the second smallest font on the sign. The IPC CoP also requires their Accredited Operators to identify themselves as “the Creditor” on any sign intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver, which the Claimant fails to do. 

6.  It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is sufficiently appropriate for creating a legally binding contract. The inappropriateness of the signage in place together with the short maximum time allowed in a retail park with several shops, supermarket and restaurant is suggestive of predatory and misleading tactics used.

pawless_patrol

FYI the claim is for a contractual charge due to a PCN issued for failing to comply with T&Cs as displayed (in summary). Includes statutory interest and recovery costs

Coupon-mad

Add  more paragraph numbers - why are people so unconfident about renumbering.  It doesn't just have to be numbered just '3' when you have lots to say and more then one paragraph of facts.

unbeknownstly

*Cough*...try again.

pawless_patrol

Coupon-mad said:

Add  more paragraph numbers - why are people so unconfident about renumbering.  It doesn't just have to be numbered just '3' when you have lots to say and more then one paragraph of facts.

unbeknownstly

*Cough*...try again.

Thanks CM, edited above.
unbeknownly? Not very comfortable with the word either  

Coupon-mad

Neither. Re-write the sentence!

Le_Kirk

pawless_patrol said:

Coupon-mad said:

Add  more paragraph numbers - why are people so unconfident about renumbering.  It doesn't just have to be numbered just '3' when you have lots to say and more then one paragraph of facts.

unbeknownstly

*Cough*...try again.

Thanks CM, edited above.
unbeknownly? Not very comfortable with the word either  

Try unknowingly.  If you are unsure if a word is correct or used in the right context, ask Auntie Google or more simply write it in a different way as advised by @Coupon-mad.

pawless_patrol

Thanks Coupon-mad and Le_Kirk for comments. This is the latest version. I don't think I can do much more with it.

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3.   The Defendant visited this retail carpark on the day of the alleged incident with her child to browse goods in one of the shops, buy groceries at the supermarket and have a meal at the restaurant, all of which are reasonable activities which are performed by most visitors to this retail park. This resulted in the Defendant unknowingly overstaying the allowed maximum stay of 90 minutes at the premises.

4.   The maximum allowed time of 90 minutes is unusually short, and it is not enough time to reasonably perform shopping & leisure activities in this retail park without incurring in a breach to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) as set by the Claimant. Although it is understandable that the landowner has the right to decide for how long drivers are entitled to free parking on his/her land, this unusual short period should have enforced the need for the signage in place to display prominently the maximum time allocated for free parking and the amount to pay as parking charge, to avoid it being a trap to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. On the contrary, the signage in place is inconspicuous and does not comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (CoP) requirements in terms of visibility and font size for a driver to be able to clearly read the T&Cs upon entering the site or parking. In consequence, signage in place fails to engage the attention of visitors and to make them aware of the fact that there is a limited time for free parking and the maximum time allowed as well as it fails to appropriately inform that there will be a parking charge in the event of breaching T&Cs.

5.   In addition, the statement on the sign describing how a driver is bound to abide by T&Cs “by entering or remaining on this land” is shown with the second smallest font of the T&Cs text, making it very difficult to spot and read from a parked car, and practically impossible from a car driving into the premises.

6.   The IPC CoP also requires their Accredited Operators to identify themselves as “the Creditor” on any sign intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver, which the Claimant fails to do.

7.   It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is sufficiently appropriate for creating a legally binding contract. The extent of the inappropriateness of the signage in place, together with the short maximum time allowed for free parking in a retail park with several shops, supermarket and restaurant is strongly suggestive of use of predatory and misleading tactics.