Allotment/ UKCPM Parking Defence

1505grandad

Can you change the discussion title?

ehannahr

Coupon-mad said:

You should certainly aver that the signs were hidden and used very small text apart from the headline capitals (NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING?).  The point is, you were never 'unauthorised

The signage doesn't have the 'No unauthorised parking' phrase,  it just states Conditions of Parking.  See this pic https://imgbb.com/vxDvWfc


But I've added a photo of how far away and small the sign is along with the following paragraph:

The newly erected signs were rather discreet and used very small text so I did not notice them - Exhibit xx -  but whatever the wording, I did not believe they applied to the allotment holders as we had prior authorisation to park.  

Do you think that's decent wording?

ehannahr

Fruitcake said:

If/when you have the claimant's WS, please post it here as well. Only redact personal data, but leave anything that is already in the public domain.

Certainly will @Fruitcake!

ehannahr

Coupon-mad said:

BTW your WS is great.

Add in as an exhibit, Sultana v Plustrade (the actual transcript linked in the article below) and explain how it is on all fours with your case:

Thanks @Coupon-mad -this gives me confidence to keep going!

I've added in a heading & paragraph as follows, along with the transcript 

Sultana v Plustrade shows derogation from grant

14. As in this case, the Claimant did not have the right to reduce the number of parking spaces allocated to the allotment holders alone. This constitutes a derogation from grant. (Exhibit xx-

ehannahr

ehannahr sai

But I've added a photo of how far away and small the sign is along with the following paragraph:

The newly erected signs were rather discreet and used very small text so I did not notice them - Exhibit xx  -  but whatever the wording, I did not believe they applied to the allotment holders as we had prior authorisation to park.  

Also, I've just found this in the IPC Code of Practice: 

Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions 

Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.

I shall add this to the end of my paragraph:

Plus there was no additional signage making clear any changes that might affect our parking, as is required by the IPC Code of Practice of which the Claimant is a member.   (Exhibit xx -  IPC Code of Practice)

Coupon-mad

I would not add that last bit.  I think you are right to leave it as you have, that 'whatever the wording, I did not believe they applied to the allotment holders as we had prior authorisation to park'.

I think you have nailed it and Saeed v Plustrade is the icing on the cake that supports your defence.

ehannahr

Ok thanks @Coupon-mad - so should I drop the argument about signage and the exhibit of the IPC CoC? Or bring them in like this: 

The newly erected signs were rather discreet and used very small text so I did not notice them - Exhibit xx  - which is in contravention of the IPC's Code of Conduct- Exhibit xx -  of which the Claimant is a member.   But whatever the wording, I did not believe they applied to the allotment holders as we had prior authorisation to park.  It is therefore denied that the claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 

ehannahr

1505grandad said:

Can you change the discussion title?

Didn't realise I could do that  - Done! 

Coupon-mad

ehannahr said:

Ok thanks @Coupon-mad - so should I drop the argument about signage and the exhibit of the IPC CoC? Or bring them in like this: 

The newly erected signs were rather discreet and used very small text so I did not notice them - Exhibit xx  - which is in contravention of the IPC's Code of Conduct- Exhibit xx -  of which the Claimant is a member.   But whatever the wording, I did not believe they applied to the allotment holders as we had prior authorisation to park.  It is therefore denied that the claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 

I'd change it to 'do not think' not 'did not think' (because it's still a problem for you, is it not?). How on earth will this ever be resolved without you all kicking up a fuss?

Have you got this wording (below) in there?  This is what you told us and it was good:

We were originally allocated the parking spaces in 2009 as part of the section 106 obligations that developers have towards local communities as they were building on an area which had previously provided direct access and free parking for the allotment holders.  

ehannahr

Great thanks - yes I have adjusted to include that section 106 wording