Forbidding signs and pre existing rights

Trainerman

Hello everyone. First post and I am dealing with a strange one. I know they all say that, but it really is. This concerns a plot of land that has been historically used for parking, by residents for over 40 years.New owners are using  private parking company to try and kick us off. We think we have a claim under the Prescription Act, but if anyone has experience of that, all help would be welcomed.

However, my first question is about forbidding signs. They actually say " Pre-authorised vehicles only" and I have appealed citing UKPC v Masterson etc as showing these do not make an offer and therefore there is no contract. Does anyone actually know of a case where POPLA have thrown out a case of signage not creating contract? Or are they, as I expect, simply a tool of backing the PPC?

The response so far seems to be " there is a sign therefore there is a contract".....which has to be ridiculous. Not only does this surely fail under contract law, but if that was all it took we could all put a sign up outside the PPC saying something like "enter this building and you owe me £100". Surely just having a sign does not create contract?

Any advice on POPLA and forbidding signs very welcome. Thanks.

Le_Kirk

You might like to try Legal Beagles as it seems a bit more complicated than a "simple" parking issue.

Trainerman

Thank you. Yes I agree that it is a bit more complicated but I did just wonder whether any of the many experts on the forum knew of POPLA throwing out on not contractual signage.

Regards

D_P_Dance

Have you read these?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6242993/court-report-brentford-telephone-ukpc-roasted/p1s

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html

Have you complained to your MP?

Fruitcake

With regards to your question about PoPLA, have a look at the PoPLA decisions thread. Start at the last post then work backwards to see if there are any cases won on forbidding signage.

Johnersh

The questions remain offer, acceptance and consideration.

If the sign places the user in an immediate breach (ie the terms could never be complied with) then it was impossible to perform and you may escape any liability. Rest assured a ppc will ticket first and then argue the point later. 

Coupon-mad

This concerns a plot of land that has been historically used for parking, by residents for over 40 years.New owners are using  private parking company to try and kick us off. We think we have a claim under the Prescription Act, but if anyone has experience of that, all help would be welcomed.

Haven't got experience of that but I agree with you.  20+ years of use looks like it has established an easement by prescription to the locals who have parked there for 40 years.  But that is waaaaay over POPLA's heads and so is 'prohibitive signage'.

Trainerman

Thanks for all the help. The appeal has now gone in, will let you know what happens but I expect them to ignore most of the points raised.

Trainerman

Popla's hair dressers and shelf fillers acted as expected. We are now at the humdrum threatogram stage from DCB Ltd (yawn). I want to go to court, so no worries there. However, my latest question regards something that has recently come up on here, that being a 'disclosed principal'. We know who the landowners are, and the use of PPC was (I believe) to try to get us to give up our established rights. The PPC are One Parking Solution.

Does the disclosed principal rule mean that actually One Parking could not take us to court but that it would have to be the landowners?

As always, thanks everyone

Coupon-mad

Yes, but it won't stop them, and only comes into play if the signs/contract disclose the principal.

On a sign at the entrance, maybe?

Or on the paperwork the permit came with, or on the permits themselves?

Trainerman

Thanks as always @Coupon-mad. The redacted contract supplied prior to PoPLA  appeal does name the people concerned as well as the address. Would that help? My purpose would be to stop any action from One Parking and make the actual root core of the dispute be taken to court by the new owners.