Parking at Costa

jrc123

Thanks @Coupon-mad I’ll remove those exhibits.

thanks @B789 I’ll remove that part of the lease as I don’t reference that anywhere and will update the numbering.

were there any other parts that stood out as incorrect?

the cases referred to after my Sequence of Events section are those relevant still?

Coupon-mad

Your paragraph numbering is odd.  Maybe not in your actual document?

This isn't quite right; this DLUHC decision is being (we hope) reconfirmed this month but if your WS is due this week you can't wait for that (BUT MUST COME BACK TO READ ABOUT IT AS IT MAY INCLUDE STUFF YOU WILL WANT TO ADD!):

10.   These are now banned costs 

We also don't mention the Semark-Jullien case much now. Looks like slightly old wording.

When is your WS deadline again?

jrc123

Thanks for the help, I think the numbering changed when I copied and pasted into the forum, will change this in the final draft.

so I should remove that particular point 10 out of the document?

and also remove the Semark-Julien case and points too?

I have to submit this latest 27th July

case is on the 11th August so I have to send this off 2 weeks before

Coupon-mad

Oh - definitely wait!

jrc123

Will do , going to make the changes in the morning to the current.

if anything is spotted do let me know

jrc123

Hi All,

@Coupon-mad mentioned to take out exhbit 4 and 5

Should i remove these points which they refer to these exhibits:

7.       I believe the signs that Capital Carpark Control are relying on at 664-690 Chigwell Road were confusing and misleading, the small print is too small for anyone to read. The signs did not properly and clearly warn and inform the terms of this car park correctly and as such failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. Please refer to Exhibit xx-04. This sign says pay by phone parking, again misleading and impossible to read.

 

8.       Next refer I refer to Exhibit xx-05. These signs fail to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. The signs are also so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of the car and climbed a stepladder to try to read them. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead.

or any suggestions what to do with these points?

jrc123

Hi @B789

I have rewritten that paragraph, is this ok?

Referring to the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) - Code of Practice Version 8 - January 2020, specifically section 19.2, it is evident that during the time I parked at 664-690 Chigwell Road, there was no visible entrance sign indicating any parking restrictions. I want to emphasize that I consistently parked in accordance with the road markings. The signage erected by the Claimant, along with the contractual terms mentioned, do not have the power to bind me legally.

B789

You refer to the section n the CoP but don't state what that section is about but then go on to say what was not visible. Doesn't read properly.

If you refer to a section of the CoP, state it and show how your experience conflicts with what that section states.

jrc123

B789 said:

You refer to the section n the CoP but don't state what that section is about but then go on to say what was not visible. Doesn't read properly.

If you refer to a section of the CoP, state it and show how your experience conflicts with what that section states.

@B789 How about this updated:

Referring to the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) - Code of Practice Version 8 - January 2020, specifically section 19.2, Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 

 

It is evident that during the time I parked at 664-690 Chigwell Road, there was no visible entrance sign indicating any parking restrictions. I want to emphasize that I consistently parked in accordance with the road markings. The signage erected by the Claimant, along with the contractual terms mentioned, do not have the power to bind me legally.

B789

Again, slightly confusing... You state there was no entrance signage. Do you have any evidence of that fact? You then mention that "the signage erected by the Claimant...", which is confusing as are you referring to the entrance signage that was not there or to other signage in the car park?