Letter of claim over historic parking charge

Johnersh

 I did knowingly park in defiance of the signage -

Not really inadequate signage if you saw it, read it and elected to chance it. I'd stop with any suggestion they were concealed or inadequate in such circumstances - there's a statement of truth to sign....

It might, however, be inadequate if the charge was unclear or the wording does not give rise to an enforceable contract.

All defences should address bolt on charges and incorrectly calculated interest, which at the very least should take £70 off. 

Coupon-mad

I see what you are saying, Johnersh, but maybe there is a point here:

This is going to be the basis of my defence - that the signage was inadequate, that to all intents and purposes the signs were positioned at the front of business premesis to stop people taking up customer and staff spaces

The side approach roads were not posted with signs, so the presumption that the restrictions did not apply there, was a natural and valid one - with pictures illustrating the then and now signage.

KennyMc157

I didn't see or read it on the day though. I was aware of restrictions, but where I parked and in numerous other points in the Business Park there were no signs. There are no signs at the entrance to the Park mentioning parking restrictions at all. Every picture I have clearly shows that they have positioned the signs facing the front of of business premesis and facing areas to the side of buildings where there are marked parking bays. There are points where half of the side is parking bays, the other half just a kerb - I was parked at the kerb where there was no sign at all on the wall (ie not even in front of the parking bays). The signs are set facing the middle of the bays - not facing the kerbed area and not in the centre of the wall which would remove the suggestion that it is just the parking bays which are out of bounds. This is at all the points where the side of the building has half parking bay/half kerbs.The areas which have no parking bays have no signs on the walls at all. In short if it is not in front of a business, or not in front of marked parking bays, the kerbside looks like it is free to park at - ie still looks like that today. I did not go looking for a sign to read the restrictions on the day - the weather was dreadful (I won't be mentioning this as an excuse), but if there had been a sign at the point where I parked, I would not have parked there,

Coupon-mad

Can you show us a link on Google Street view?

KennyMc157

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3966153,-3.0105637,3a,75y,145.68h,94.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLVRzJA7uvTNfW9CFP47SzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(Hope that works). I was ticketed parked by wall 71-79 (white and grey cars). The  photos on the day, as in the photos I took last week show that the sign on the wall in this google maps picture was not there. The sign by the shutters was, but I was parked at the kerb from where it is somewhat obscured by the drainpipe. 

Wall 76-82 does still have a sign on it (I am not submitting a picture of that). I am submitting pictures of wall 71-79, the next wall along from that, wall 81-89, the other 71-79 wall (confusing - the one with the Peter D Welch sign) and the the next three walls along on the opposite side to this.

Apart from the where I was parked the signs are as they are here. I think it demonstrates my point hwereby they are only placed facing the marked parking bays.

There are no warnings at either entrance. At best the signage is inconsistent, at worst it is misleading. But that’s only my interpretation obviously.

Coupon-mad

I agree.

GSV also shows an old illegal wheel clamping sign but maybe that's gone now.  Anyway that whole estate is sporadically signed at best.  Some good photos should be able to demonstrate that fact and as you say, the few signs that are on the odd building appear to be for permit bays.

I'd say this set up fails the CRA 2015 test of prominence and transparency, and it's nowhere near reaching the bar of the 'red hand rule' (Lord Denning, Spurling v Bradshaw is worth you reading and using).

KennyMc157

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here, but in an earlier post KeithP advises: “You Defence consists of legal arguments. Your Witness Statement will explain what happened and will be evidenced by your... err... evidence. “

But in part two of the newbies, the defence template part 3 states: “3.  [REMOVE AND REPLACE THESE NOTES! EXPLAIN WHAT YOU KNOW IN YOUR OWN WORDS]  

If you are admitting to driving, you will be talking about what the Defendant saw or didn’t see, in terms of the signs, whether it was dark, whether the signs were obscured by a tree, really small, broken or not lit? etc. Or maybe the signs about inputting your VRM were not conspicuous, or maybe this was a fluttering ticket situation, or maybe the machine made an error in your VRM (never assume the driver made a typo, unless clearly the driver, say, input their other car VRM or something).

What I know in my own words, is what I will put in my defence statement. SO it is just a question of summarising here and expanding in the witness statement and including the photos there?

Coupon-mad

Yes it is, and the defence is written in the third person, as you can see from the style of the template.

Copy that style when writing point #3 and 4 (and more if you need more paragraphs, all numbered) and summarise the points that you will later give a first person account if in your WS.

Johnersh

The key is having a defence that isn't inconsistent with what you are later to say in witness evidence.

Care is needed. What was initially said on forum, likely for speed actually doesn't set out the true picture as later explained.

There is a degree of candour/credibility that comes from admitting who was driving and which may make the statement less convoluted. In most cases ppcs aren't recovering the £70 uplift in any event. 

KennyMc157

Is this too basic? If I put this into part 3 would it suffice? My defence will be detailing the poor signage throughout the park and the misleading nature of its placement.

The defendant will show that the signs indicating the parking restrictions which applied to the business park in which this charge was made, were inadequate in number and prominence and placed in a negligently sporadic way, so as to give the impression that any restrictions on parking applied to specific areas only and not the whole park. The defendant will show that the place where he parked his car had no clearly placed warnings of restrictions or potential charges for parking where he did. The defendant contests that he parked in good faith, with nothing to make him believe otherwise that  he had done so in a place which did not inconvenience any businesses, took up no allocated or marked parking areas, caused no obstruction or hazard and was not in contempt of any restrictions to him doing so.

Feel free to rip this to pieces - I used to be a big fan of Rumpole of The Bailey and LA Law, but beyond that my knowldege of Legal processes, protocol's etc is zero. I was going to put this para in part three, leave the rest unchanged (apart from personal details and removing the instructions etc) and send it. More than happy to accept and extremely grateful for any help, advice, hints, tips, etcbefore I do (as I am for the time afforded me to date).