County court business centre claim form from Uk parking control limited

Le_Kirk

ox141jf said:

4. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant parked at Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious parking restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have used an alternative location. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

5.  The signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

You didn't see the signs but they were forbidding in nature!  Did you see the signs on a subsequent research visit?

1505grandad

"This number 9GF0A9E is taken from the transcript from the Parking Pranksters site."

Clarified here:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78866217/#Comment_78866217

ox141jf

Le_Kirk said:

ox141jf said:

4. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant parked at Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious parking restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have used an alternative location. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

5.  The signs are forbidding in nature therefore there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

You didn't see the signs but they were forbidding in nature!  Did you see the signs on a subsequent research visit?

the sign i am referring to is from the photograph they provided of the sign that was on site.

ox141jf

OK I have modified the forbidding sign paragraph.
I have also added in the B the case number.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3. In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number B9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence.

4. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant utilised the abandoned property on Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious stopping restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not stop or park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have used an alternative location. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

5.  The sign provided by UKPC, photographed on the day the fine was issued are forbidding in nature therefore, had the sign been clearly visible, there can be no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be no acceptance, and therefore there can be no contract formed. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

6. The property has been boarded up, closed and derelict since prior to 2012, UKPC has declined to provide proof that they had authority or charge to manage the parking area outside the abandoned property.

7.   The Defendant denies accepting any contract with the Claimant. The Claimant has no right to harass the Defendant with demands for payment and threats of legal action.

8. The Defendant avers that the abandoned site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context.

9. Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. The Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landowner themselves.  Meaning at most, the driver is guilty of trespass which is strictly only actionable only by the Landowner, not this Claimant.

Le_Kirk

5.  The sign provided by UKPC, photographed on the day the fine was issued, are is forbidding in nature and therefore, had the sign been clearly visible, there can be could have been no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there can be could have been no acceptance, and therefore there can be could have been no contract formed.

If it is one sign then adjust as above.  Also you started in the past tense and should continue in same.

ox141jf

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3. At the 23/01/2017 when the defendant utilised the abandoned property on Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious stopping restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not stop or park. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking was not allowed, they would have used an alternative location. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming into the area as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

4. In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number B9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence.

5.  The sign provided by UKPC, photographed on the day the fine was issued is forbidding in nature and therefore, had the sign been clearly visible, there could have been no offer to a motorist who does not have a permit, therefore there could have been no acceptance, and therefore there could have been be no contract formed. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

 

6. The property has been boarded up, closed and derelict since prior to 2012, UKPC has declined to provide proof that they had authority or charge to manage the parking area outside the abandoned property.

7.   The Defendant denies accepting any contract with the Claimant. The Claimant has no right to harass the Defendant with demands for payment and threats of legal action.

8. The Defendant avers that the abandoned site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context.

9. Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. The Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landowner themselves.  Meaning at most, the driver is guilty of trespass which is strictly only actionable only by the Landowner, not this Claimant.

Coupon-mad

In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming to park 

'When coming to PARK'?

ox141jf

when coming into the area? 

D_P_Dance

In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located

It often is, read this,

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

Le_Kirk

3. At the On 23/01/2017, when the defendant utilised the abandoned property on Paradise street in order to collect items from a nearby business, the building had no obvious stopping restrictions in place such as painted lines and no obvious signage indicating the defendant could not stop or park or load/unload. Instead, there were only remnants from posters and graffiti as posters and signs were regularly put up and removed in that area. Had the defendant seen clear signage stating parking loading/unloading was not allowed, they would have used an alternative location. In addition, the signage that was in place was sparse and poorly located meaning the defendant would not have noticed the signage when coming into the area as it was facing their back and located above eye level.

Maybe adjust as above.