UK PARKING PATROL OFFICE LTD - COURT PROCEEDINGS

nosferatu1001

Why delete them?
Forbidding signage, obviously. No contract is offered to anyone other than an authorised Parker. 

Fazzz

Thank you, just have seen any images been uploaded to other threads and would be easy for the members to follow the thread, rather than cluttering up. 
@nosferatu1001 how should I raise/argue this point then ?

nosferatu1001

Have you looked for the term forbidding sign, or similar?
you can see it discused
a contract must have offer, acceptance, consideration.  There is no offer of parking. No offer, no contract 

Johnersh

See Pace v lengyl.

You're in breach of the terms the moment you arrived. Nothing you could do would ever allow you to comply with the terms - No permit and no option to obtain a permit.

The sign doesn't offer parking for a £100 charge as an alternative to displaying a permit - its a penalty for breach, not the consideration in the contract. 

Fruitcake

Fazzz said:

Coupon-mad said:

    The defendant who have parked in the car park on previous occasions from time to time when he was covering a shift there.

You need to explain where 'there' is and what your job is.  Remember, the Judge doesn't know the background or any facts.

Also 'who have parked' is not grammatically correct English.

Thank you, I will amend it. I assume the rest of the paragraphs are ok?

I have also sent an email to UK Parking Patrol Limited about Subject Access Request as recommended by Redx. Do I also need to send them a request in post? 
Thank you

Did you also send one to UK Parking Patrol Office Limited? 

Fazzz

Hi @Fruitcake, I have sent an email to their standard email (info@parkingpatrol.co.uk) as I couldn't find their data protection email. is that ok ?

nosferatu1001

Probably not. You have no idea if it will get to the right person. 

I did an obvious google search and got https://www.parking-tickets.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ANPR-Privacy-Notice-PARKING-PATROL.pdf

Fazzz

Thank you so much, I have sent it now. 

Fazzz

I  have made some amendments, i would be grateful if I can get some more guidance/advice. Thank you 

1.       The Defendant has parked in the staff car park on previous occasions when he has worked at the[            ]. There was no requirement to display a staff parking permit. Given the fact that this has been changed in the recent past, no prominent additional signs have been placed or clear notice has been given. As soon as you approach the car park, there is a relatively big sign saying, ‘Forum Staff Car Park Only’. This sign is misleading and contradicts the other signs in the car park. The IPC Code of Practice is very clear about any additional signs, ‘Signage which is neither an entrance sign or a sign displaying all the terms and conditions must not contradict the terms applicable to Motorists or be misleading’.  

2.       Given the fact that the rules/terms and conditions have been changed in the recent past. The Claimant failed to adhere to IPC Code of Practice in terms of any change in its terms and conditions. The Code of Practice says:

‘Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges’.

Any reasonable person who is not a regular visitor can be easily misled. Any other signs in the car park are very small and difficult to read and spot. As suggested in the ParkingEye Limited v Barry Beavis, the driver must be given adequate notice, the claimant failed to do so in this case.

3.    The signage failed the fairness tests established in Parking Eye v Beavis. Due to the imprecise wording and failure to adhere to the IPC code of practice, the driver did not form any contract with the Claimant and as a result, it invalidates all the charges. Following Pace v Lengyel, the parking required a permit and as the driver did not and could not have a permit, the contract in any case failed by the doctrine of impossibility. As many other judges have found with this type of signage, it means no contract could be in place and the driver would be a trespasser. The claimant did not argue trespass, therefore this claim bound to fail. Even if the claimant argued trespass, it would have still failed, because only the land occupier can sue for trespass, and even in those circumstances as established in ParkingEye v Beavis, only actual damages would have been recoverable, not fictional amounts.

Coupon-mad

Add this as well (I've just added it today, to the TEMPLATE DEFENCE but you can have it as #4 in yours):

4.  Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.