DCBL / UK Parking Control

Coupon-mad

That is a non point.  Don’t follow that up, people keep saying this and we keep saying ‘forget that’. 

By parking you agreed, if the signs were prominent.  

Jcosh

Coupon-mad said:

That is a non point.  Don’t follow that up, people keep saying this and we keep saying ‘forget that’. 

By parking you agreed, if the signs were prominent.  

OK. In which case I have no defence what so ever. 

Man drives into car park that he has used for over 15 years, whilst completely unaware of the parking signs (never noticed them in all this time). Parks car and overlaps a parking bay, gets ticket. Ignores requested for payment, goes to court, has to pay up. 

On that basis I may as well try and settle out of court for a lesser amount and avoid the hassle, or am I missing something here?

Umkomaas

On that basis I may as well try and settle out of court for a lesser amount and avoid the hassle, or am I missing something here?

Yes, what @Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

That is a non point.  Don’t follow that up, people keep saying this and we keep saying ‘forget that’. 

ignavia

UKPC's position is

"Driver drives into car park, sees clear and obvious signs, reads signs and all small print in 10 seconds, understands and agrees, then deliberately parks so as to incur a charge."

If any of that is not what happened, then that is your defence.

The sign you have shown states "No Unauthorised Parking", and does not indicate how to obtain authorisation. UKPC v Masterson B6QZ4H3R 2016 may be relevant.

Jcosh

ignavia said:

UKPC's position is

"Driver drives into car park, sees clear and obvious signs, reads signs and all small print in 10 seconds, understands and agrees, then deliberately parks so as to incur a charge."

If any of that is not what happened, then that is your defence.

The sign you have shown states "No Unauthorised Parking", and does not indicate how to obtain authorisation. UKPC v Masterson B6QZ4H3R 2016 may be relevant.

Yes, that is what happened. Although I never read any signs, but that's besides the point I guess. 

Read the UKPC v Masterson B6QZ4H3R 2016 case - who won the claimant or the defendant? Wasn't clear to me. 

Umkomaas

Jcosh said:

ignavia said:

UKPC's position is

"Driver drives into car park, sees clear and obvious signs, reads signs and all small print in 10 seconds, understands and agrees, then deliberately parks so as to incur a charge."

If any of that is not what happened, then that is your defence.

The sign you have shown states "No Unauthorised Parking", and does not indicate how to obtain authorisation. UKPC v Masterson B6QZ4H3R 2016 may be relevant.

Yes, that is what happened. Although I never read any signs, but that's besides the point I guess. 

Read the UKPC v Masterson B6QZ4H3R 2016 case - who won the claimant or the defendant? Wasn't clear to me. 

No contractual licence to park between UKPC and Mr Masterton - no contract to offer, therefore Mr M was offered nothing - 'offer' is one of the three essential elements of a contract.  At best, this was trespass, and pursuing that was down to the landowner, not the parking firm. 

8. So for those reasons, I am unable to accept that the particular circumstances of this case reveal a contractual licence to park with a contract between the parking manager, in this case UKPC, in the Supreme Court authority ParkingEye, and the vehicle owner or driver, in this case the defendant, and in the Supreme Court authority, Mr Beavis.

Coupon-mad

sounds like the signs were not clear and prominent. That is a defence.  Also how far were you overlapping a line because there is a defence of de minimis.

D_P_Dance

sounds like the signs were not clear and prominent. That is a defence.

Indeed, have you read this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

sounds like the signs were not clear and prominent. That is a defence.

Indeed, have you read this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of fish. Apart from the predictable ranty posts, there's nothing conclusive - no court case or judgment, not even at DDJ level, and it's about ParkingEye, not UKPC. 

Can you elucidate?

D_P_Dance

It is background infornmation.  The OP may or may not find it useful.  I certainly would if I was a newbie.