Help please!! DCB legal court claim received

Le_Kirk

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Does it say in the contract (signage) "during inclement weather if there are puddles or snow, park somewhere else" ?

Hopefully the PPC will comply with the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 and ensure the car park is safe.

They are purported to be car park managers aren't they and that does include more than just taking the ticket money and suing unsuspecting motorists, therefore they have a duty and an obligation to MANAGE the area which ought to include keeping it clear of puddles and snow and other obstructions.

Were_Doomed

Le_Kirk said:

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Does it say in the contract (signage) "during inclement weather if there are puddles or snow, park somewhere else" ?

Hopefully the PPC will comply with the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 and ensure the car park is safe.

They are purported to be car park managers aren't they and that does include more than just taking the ticket money and suing unsuspecting motorists, therefore they have a duty and an obligation to MANAGE the area which ought to include keeping it clear of puddles and snow and other obstructions.

I guess that will be dependant on what are their contractual obligations. If they have no maintenance obligation then liability under said Act would fall to the owner/freeholder/leaseholder as applicable.

Nice angle but I don't think it'll fly.  

Snakes_Belly

In terms of inclement weather the contracts/signs do not usually state that people should move their cars. They do often state that they should park within the lines but what if the lines are not visible? They cannot fulfill the contract then this must be frustration of contract. 

Castle

Were_Doomed said:

Le_Kirk said:

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Does it say in the contract (signage) "during inclement weather if there are puddles or snow, park somewhere else" ?

Hopefully the PPC will comply with the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 and ensure the car park is safe.

They are purported to be car park managers aren't they and that does include more than just taking the ticket money and suing unsuspecting motorists, therefore they have a duty and an obligation to MANAGE the area which ought to include keeping it clear of puddles and snow and other obstructions.

I guess that will be dependant on what are their contractual obligations. If they have no maintenance obligation then liability under said Act would fall to the owner/freeholder/leaseholder as applicable.

Nice angle but I don't think it'll fly.  

How about the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articles/safety-and-car-parks
(Note the BPA gets a mention in the article!)

Le_Kirk

Were_Doomed said:

Le_Kirk said:

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Does it say in the contract (signage) "during inclement weather if there are puddles or snow, park somewhere else" ?

Hopefully the PPC will comply with the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 and ensure the car park is safe.

They are purported to be car park managers aren't they and that does include more than just taking the ticket money and suing unsuspecting motorists, therefore they have a duty and an obligation to MANAGE the area which ought to include keeping it clear of puddles and snow and other obstructions.

I guess that will be dependant on what are their contractual obligations. If they have no maintenance obligation then liability under said Act would fall to the owner/freeholder/leaseholder as applicable.
Nice angle but I don't think it'll fly.  

Wasn't really a serious suggestion as a defence point, more of a comment!

Snakes_Belly

Their argument will be that the car should have been moved but I bet that there is nothing on the signage that describes what the motorist should do if the car park is water logged or covered in snow.  

Worcestermum

Defence draft - Advice 
I have drafted  # 2 # 3 posted below. Not sure if i should add in about the space on the very end not being able to park a car in as too small or shall i leave that out / leave to witness statement. I have been told that the carpark has been remarked since this incident as the lady who owns the shop opposite has told me. Pictures on google images of carpark show newly remarked lines as has been updated since ticked issued February 2020. 

Defence

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the alleged date. 

 

3.  The defendant entered the carpark which was waterlogged due to recent heavy rainfall. It was a grey dark day. The defendant did not see any signs upon entering the carpark. The defendant parked the vehicle, lines not visible due to pools of water and a low maintained car park. The defendant proceeded to pay for a 2 hour parking ticket and placed in clear view on dashboard.

Coupon-mad

and a low maintained car park

could be:
and a poorly-maintained, potholed car park

Worcestermum

Thank you I will amend it 

D_P_Dance

Partner is wrong, it is invariably a scam and £244 almost certainly contains unlawful amounts.  Signs and lines appear to be defective.  This is well fighting, the more peoples who contest these scam claims in court the quicker they will go bankrupt and stop targetting the vulnerable.  .