Adjourned Hearing - a Skeleton Argument Confined to 3 Issues of Law required

buckminster

Snakes_Belly said:

Regarding the fake add on did you ever receive any debt collection letters from DRP or Zenith (same company)?

i didn't receive any debt collection letters, no.

Snakes_Belly said:

There has not been much mention of the signage.

images of the signage below - there is a lot of information on these, in small font and not all of it accurate (it mentions parking attendants - there were none); the helpline on the main board is in direct reference to faulty parking meters; additionally, i wouldn't have been able to read all this information within the 10 minutes grace period that their system allows, indeed there records show that by the time i had finished with the pay by phone system, 10 minutes had already expired.:

Fruitcake

Stock images from a computer hard drive, not images of the actual signs on site.

buckminster

@Fruitcake they do have images of these signs from the car park:

Fruitcake

The wording is cluttered, and the amount of the charge is in tiny font at the bottom, buried amongst other wording in tiny font. Totally inadequate, totally dissimilar to the signs in the Beavis case, and totally incapable of drawing a motorists attention to the charge or forming a contract with them.

buckminster

thanks @Fruitcake - apologies that was me redacting the images

Fruitcake

Redacting the location is okay if it is for example your home, but the regulars need all the information you can give us. Hiding stuff that could be useful to us is not helpful to you.

D_P_Dance

That sign is a nightmare, more suitable to commissioning an aircraft carrier than parking your car for a couple of hours, read this, 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

I am sure tht it falls to be consider as unfair under the Consumer Rights Act

Snakes_Belly

Excel signs are like War and Peace and some of the font is so tiny. I don't know if they should be sticking signs on the wall as it is a conservation area. 

I took a look at the Government Land Registry website and I could not indentify the car park. There is only one leasehold property/land on that road and it just has a number. It's not identified as a car park.

Could not find anything in planning other than the plans for the retirement properties which were turned down.

You could ring up the council and ask who is paying the business rates on that car park. I would demand to see the actual lease as those WS are not worth the paper that they are written on. 

 

buckminster

Coupon-mad said:

OK so that legal argument is assisted by case law such as Jolley v Carmel - I wonder if @Johnersh can locate the transcript because I haven't got it.

apologies @Johnersh do you have the transcript for Jolley v Carmel that you could send to me for inclusion in my skeleton argument? thanks

KeithP

Wasn't Jolley v Carmel on the BMPA website once upon a time?
I know that doesn't directly help, but may give someone an idea where to look.