PCN while in GF's allocated parking bay - permit slipped off dashboard

zimbo_ouen

I'll have to ask her tonight if she would be this seems to be stressing her out
But the fact she has given me the lease would help no? and guess she can always write a witness statement also if she didn't want to go to court?
Her parents visited once and she forgot to put out the permit in their car, and they got stung but paid it

Le_Kirk

zimbo_ouen said:

Uptown_Boy said:

zimbo_ouen said:

See below about an extra £60 charge?

There's all sorts of "wrong" about that sign. 🙄

• The amount of the PCN (£100) is in small font, so not prominent (Lord Denning's "Red Hand" rule)
• The additional charge is unrecoverable (the business model already includes costs of recovery ... Supreme Court ruling in Parking Eye v Beavis)
• The sign is forbidding ... you cannot contract to do that which is forbidden. If you're not permitted to park there without a valid permit, then you cannot contract to park there for an arbitrary sum
• Etc.

Thanks @Uptown_Boy
What do you mean by the fact the sign is forbidding? and that you cannot contract to do which is forbidden? I don't see any mention of the word "forbid" in there so just want to understand this context.
Thank you

It is the difference between this parking area which says you can only park there if you are displaying a permit, i.e. it FORBIDS anyone else and, for example a pay and display car park that INVITES you to park for a consideration, i.e. the payment.

Coupon-mad

D_P_Dance said:

Keep steadfast.  As a friend of the leaseholder you have a legal right to park where you did with her permission.  Would she go to court with you?  In the grand scheme of things this is a piddling parking charge by a well known scammer.   

She doesn't have to go to court.

D_P_Dance

I know  that, but  I asked if she would.  

zimbo_ouen

After some digging around one thing I've seen/realised now is I inadvertently advised I was the driver when I first made the appeal even though I ticked the keeper box, I did mention the fact the permit may have slid off when I was driving home there.

I guess this maybe doesn't change things much anyway about the fact I was permitted to park there and all the other evidence I've shown so far but wanted to check whether this will change things?

D_P_Dance

In "own space" cases the identity of the driver is of little importance, it is the wording of the lease/AST that matters.  

zimbo_ouen

D_P_Dance said:

In "own space" cases the identity of the driver is of little importance, it is the wording of the lease/AST that matters.  

cool thanks @D_P_Dance for your swift answer

zimbo_ouen

Just discovered this as I am a member of the residents facebook group page where my g/f lives:


I've obviously messaged them now about this and will get my girlfriend to email the crappy Hazelvine about this. Hopefully they still live there and also at lease to give me their advice, defence and case details which I can reference and cite if need be

Umkomaas

zimbo_ouen said:

After some digging around one thing I've seen/realised now is I inadvertently advised I was the driver when I first made the appeal even though I ticked the keeper box, I did mention the fact the permit may have slid off when I was driving home there.

I guess this maybe doesn't change things much anyway about the fact I was permitted to park there and all the other evidence I've shown so far but wanted to check whether this will change things?

If the PPCs NtK was PoFA-compliant (and most PPCs are now using fully compliant ones), then there is no advantage to not identifying yourself as the driver. In fact, it makes it less difficult to defend, as you are a 'reliable witness' not appearing evasive, trying to 'hide' behind PoFA and attempting to win purely on a legal technicality. 

Don't lose any sleep over it, it is not an issue. 

nosferatu1001

I'm not sure this got ansswered for you OP

A contract requires three elements
Offer
Acceptance
Consideation (something of value going between the two parties)
They dont offer anything to non permit holders. If they dont offer there cannot be any contract. It in fact says you cannot do anything - so not even ambiguous, theyre telling you you cannot do something