NCP and BW Legal CCBC claim for being "Parked without payment of the parking charge"

nosferatu1001

Have you not read the template defence yet? 
Remember: you are posting on a forum that PPCs trawl. Think carefully before posting about wha tyou are potentially admitting to .

Le_Kirk

railwaytaverncustomer said:

Is best defence poor signage in your opinion? I guess it's not a defence to say "defendant just did not read signs and therefore didn't enter into contract"

"Didn't see the signs" is different to "didn't read them", which suggests you did see them!  Don't do the claimant's job for them

Ralph-y

some reading to help ...

link to court section in newbies thread
.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

and  

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs#latest

Ralph

railwaytaverncustomer

Not admitting anything. Please don't make assumptions. It was a theoretical question.
How can a binding contract be formed if an individual has not read terms and conditions?

KeithP

railwaytaverncustomer said:

Not admitting anything. Please don't make assumptions. It was a theoretical question.
How can a binding contract be formed if an individual has not read terms and conditions?

You saw the signs but didn't read them and parked anyway.

Could be translated as:
You were offered a contract. You chose not to read it. You accepted the terms of the contract by parking.

That's a bit different to:
You didn't see any signs so had no opportunity to make a rational decision on whether to park or not.

 Hope that helps.  

KeithP

railwaytaverncustomer said:

A little thing I've noticed with this forum is that the auto correct seems to be in US English. Not UK.
I knew my spelling was bad, but not that bad!

Perhaps your spillchucker needs to be changed from US English to UK English?

railwaytaverncustomer

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and indeed the driver, but liability is denied. 

 3a.        The car parks signs are unlit and placed in such a way that no one entering the car park in question would possibly be able to read all the small text within a reasonable amount of time without causing a large queue of traffic behind them, which is expressly forbidden by the councils own signage outside the car park. It reads "No queuing for car park" in large easily read text, unlike the text used on the NCP's signage. 

3b.       The defendant was unable to clearly view relevant signage due to a large trees branches overhanging and partially obscuring the view at the car park entrance.

3c.       It should also be noted that the main terms and conditions sign at the entrance is placed directly on the right hand side of the vehicle entrance road with no safe area in which to stand and read them from without being in the middle of the entrance road for a prolonged period of time. The total amount of text is approximately 4x A4 pages worth of small text. This is obviously extremely unsafe for any individual wanting to read them. There is a short length of metal Armco barrier and a large salt bin on the tiny strip of land on which the signs are placed taking up any safe space where an individual would be able to stand and read the signs safely from. 

3d.       The car park in question had a new ANPR system installed recently and the defendant was unaware that this change had occurred, there was no obvious signage indicating this change despite it being a requirement detailed in the British Parking Association Code of Practice in force at the time.

"18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones."

3e.       The defendant  denies that any contract was entered into as the relevant signage was not easily read due to being placed in a dangerous position and being partially obscured by a trees branches.

4.       The claimant claims that the "period of parking" was between 13:37:54 and 13:53:17. These are just the times the vehicle entered and exited the car park  and bear no relation to the actual time parked. 

A more accurate statement would be "Time spent within car park boundary".

The time inside totalled 15 minutes and 23 seconds. 

Some of this time was spent looking for an appropriate space. Yet more time was spent trying to read the terms and conditions signs (approximately 4x A4 pages worth).

Then more of this time was spent unloading goods which were being dropped off at a charity shop. Finally more of this time was then spent loading up the vehicle and exiting the car park. 

The actual time spent parked was well under 10 minutes, which by the NCP's own guidance is well within the grace period they themselves allow. 

I'm guessing words like approximately aren't any good regarding legal matters?

I've just looked on NCP website at their T and C's, its just over 2 A4 pages of very small text. 

I started a timer and read the first half of the 1st page, it took just over 2.5 minutes. So to read the entire text would have taken around 10 minutes. And that was reading briskly.

railwaytaverncustomer

Sorry, realised the spell check was on my PC just after I posted. Not firing on all cylinders right now. Cheers Keith.

Redx

3d needs a bit adding

despite it being a requirement detailed in the British Parking Association Code of Practice in force at the time

railwaytaverncustomer

Cheers Red. have edited. 
If it takes an average reader 10 mins just to read T and C's and total time in car park is 15, then it can be argued that time spent actually parked was well under 10 mins and therefore well under grace period no?