Help with defence

KeithP

Signs up that road show the wording...
PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR VEHICLES:
DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT WITHIN THE WINDSCREEN WITH PERMIT CLEARLY ON VIEW

See here: https://goo.gl/maps/47xWKhFtoyHTwn9D8 ...



A sign that forbids parking to those not complying.

nosferatu1001

Absolutely
If you do not comply, parking is NOT permitted

jordan91

I am aware of what the sign says now, but at the time I did not notice it. 

So are you saying that my case is most likely going to get dismissed and I am going to have to pay?

KeithP

jordan91 said:

I am aware of what the sign says now, but at the time I did not notice it. 

So are you saying that my case is most likely going to get dismissed and I am going to have to pay?

Well it might get dismissed, but in your favour.

That sign, and others, forbid parking if you don't display a permit.

You cannot enter into a contract to do something that you are forbidden to do.

Therefore, as the driver did not enter into a contract, there can be no possibility that any contract breach took place. 

It follows that the driver is not liable for the alleged charge.

jordan91

KeithP said:

jordan91 said:

I am aware of what the sign says now, but at the time I did not notice it. 

So are you saying that my case is most likely going to get dismissed and I am going to have to pay?

Well it might get dismissed, but in your favour.

That sign, and others, forbid parking if you don't display a permit.

You cannot enter into a contract to do something that you are forbidden to do.

Therefore, as the driver did not enter into a contract, there can be no possibility that any contract breach took place. 

It follows that the driver is not liable for the alleged charge.

Well that is good to know! Thank you!!

Now how would I word that into my defence?

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

Redx

jordan91 said:

KeithP said:

jordan91 said:

I am aware of what the sign says now, but at the time I did not notice it. 

So are you saying that my case is most likely going to get dismissed and I am going to have to pay?

Well it might get dismissed, but in your favour.

That sign, and others, forbid parking if you don't display a permit.

You cannot enter into a contract to do something that you are forbidden to do.

Therefore, as the driver did not enter into a contract, there can be no possibility that any contract breach took place. 

It follows that the driver is not liable for the alleged charge.

Well that is good to know! Thank you!!

Now how would I word that into my defence?

By reading other similar defences on here over the last couple of years , especially any that have concluded , then plagiarising their words. Learn by example , from people further down the road who have already done it

Coupon-mad

jordan91 said:

I am aware of what the sign says now, but at the time I did not notice it. 

So are you saying that my case is most likely going to get dismissed and I am going to have to pay?

Wow, we pointed out something about the sign that supports your position and it flew right over your head and you thought we were saying the sign was clear?   It always amazes me that people read what we are saying and yet jump to completely the wrong understanding. 

Read PCM v  Bull in the Parking Prankster's case law pages (Google it).  You need to understand the simple point the regulars were making for you.

That sign is also unlit (was it dark?  was it Winter?) and there is only a sign on the right side of a dual-lane entrance and exit from a very busy A road, such that it would only take a high-sided van or people carrier exiting, to completely obscure that sign as you driving in.

jordan91

Coupon-mad said:

jordan91 said:

I am aware of what the sign says now, but at the time I did not notice it. 

So are you saying that my case is most likely going to get dismissed and I am going to have to pay?

Wow, we pointed out something about the sign that supports your position and it flew right over your head and you thought we were saying the sign was clear?   It always amazes me that people read what we are saying and yet jump to completely the wrong understanding. 

Read PCM v  Bull in the Parking Prankster's case law pages (Google it).  You need to understand the simple point the regulars were making for you.

That sign is also unlit (was it dark?  was it Winter?) and there is only a sign on the right side of a dual-lane entrance and exit from a very busy A road, such that it would only take a high-sided van or people carrier exiting, to completely obscure that sign as you driving in.

I am so sorry that I am not as clued up as some of you and the regulars here. And I am so sorry that reading a post that says "PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR VEHICLES:
DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT WITHIN THE WINDSCREEN WITH PERMIT CLEARLY ON VIEW" made me think I did not have a case considering I was not displaying a valid permit. 

But cheers for your positive input and general friendliness. 

Redx

Just think about it , can a non permit holder contract to park there ? If yes , does the sign tell them how to do so ?

If the answer is no , then it's the same as a sign saying , No Trespassing , so if you park where that sign is , what are you actually doing ? (The clue is in the sign )

Can a parking company prosecute you for that transgression ? (No ) , ergo , no contract was agreed between the parties

This means that you cannot agree a contract where said contract is forbidden !!

Think about it