'Overstay' in gym car park

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Images I have been sent have a date stamp from 2017. There have been no changes between the signage then and now. 

Errr but you don't really know that.

Old signage pics can be challenged by Defendant, of course!  They MIGHT NOT have bern the same on the material date...

Re the redactions on that letter of authority, search the forum for:

Promontoria redactions improper

GDPR & the DPA 2018 were introduced in 2018 so there would have been changes to comply with the new laws.

Coupon-mad

KMBayes said:

Had a word with front of house today. Was very nice about it and told me they recognise the problem but they had no influence over MET parking. 

Aware of the problem, Virgin have taken to adding their own more prominent notices to alert members. I think there’s clear ambiguity members/vehicles but perhaps a defence on illegible signage is a better route.

The above first image adds an extra point.  That sign identifies the principal (Virgin Active) instructs drivers what to do and warns of a 'fine' so the OP also has the added point about Fairlie v Fenton.

You need to read my thread about the last court case I did re NCP at a railway car park last year. It covers both Fairlie and Promontoria, and those were the exact two arguments that won! 

In terms of signage, since our ‘offence’ there is more of it about, 11 notices in all, but all placed in positions where they are least likely to be noticed in the car park and elevated about 10 feet off the ground. It’s impossible to read the full terms of the ‘contract’ by naked eye.

This was an earlier post jn this thread so why are we now being wrongly told that the signs haven't changed since 2017, when they have.

This isn't right, for various reasons:

"Images I have been sent have a date stamp from 2017. There have been no changes between the signage then and now!"

That's an incorrect assumption.  Don't believe their version in their WS!

Even if we hadn't been told earlier in this thread that signs were added later,  @Castle makes the valid point that ALL SIGNS in every car park in the UK changed in May 2018, due to GDPR 2018. No signage is the same as it was in 2017.

Castle

As per Companies House, Met Parking Services Ltd, (company reg number 05468096), changed its Registered Office on 15th May 2017 from 125 City Wall, London to Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London. Therefore, the signs would have had to have changed.

KMBayes

Coupon-mad said:

KMBayes said:

Had a word with front of house today. Was very nice about it and told me they recognise the problem but they had no influence over MET parking. 

Aware of the problem, Virgin have taken to adding their own more prominent notices to alert members. I think there’s clear ambiguity members/vehicles but perhaps a defence on illegible signage is a better route.

The above first image adds an extra point.  That sign identifies the principal (Virgin Active) instructs drivers what to do and warns of a 'fine' so the OP also has the added point about Fairlie v Fenton.

You need to read my thread about the last court case I did re NCP at a railway car park last year. It covers both Fairlie and Promontoria, and those were the exact two arguments that won! 

In terms of signage, since our ‘offence’ there is more of it about, 11 notices in all, but all placed in positions where they are least likely to be noticed in the car park and elevated about 10 feet off the ground. It’s impossible to read the full terms of the ‘contract’ by naked eye.

This was an earlier post jn this thread so why are we now being wrongly told that the signs haven't changed since 2017, when they have.

This isn't right, for various reasons:

"Images I have been sent have a date stamp from 2017. There have been no changes between the signage then and now!"

That's an incorrect assumption.  Don't believe their version in their WS!

Even if we hadn't been told earlier in this thread that signs were added later,  @Castle makes the valid point that ALL SIGNS in every car park in the UK changed in May 2018, due to GDPR 2018. No signage is the same as it was in 2017.

Thanks for this. I'll be aiming to deal with this over the weekend - I've downloaded a few witness statements that you'd flagged as very good for guidance. In terms of your point about Fairlie v Fenton, over and above that sign there is an ipad at reception where you can input a registration number and the parking time limit is extended from the advertised four hours up to 11:59 pm. Is this something I should include as it obviously indicates that MET parking does not have full autonomy?

I did a quick search on our assigned district judge. He's previously dismissed parking cases solely on the font size of the small print so I'm quite optimistic.

Coupon-mad

Very good.  And yes MET doesn't have autonomy and the Principal is disclosed on the signs, so the offer is made by Virgin Active.

KMBayes

My deadline to post witness statements is 4th July. I have a copy of their witness statement that was sent via email this morning. Is it useful to attach a redacted version of this pdf? I'm pleased to note that their defense includes images with a 2017 timestamp and a redacted contract.

 Is there a copy of the judgement where the Fairlie and Promontoria arguments won the case that I could specifically reference? I already have Fairlie covered in my draft witness statement. 

KMBayes

Castle said:

As per Companies House, Met Parking Services Ltd, (company reg number 05468096), changed its Registered Office on 15th May 2017 from 125 City Wall, London to Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London. Therefore, the signs would have had to have changed.

I checked this on companies house and you are correct about this change. The signs at the time of these incidents back in 2022 all still have the old address and it has still not been changed. Is this at all relevant?

Coupon-mad

KMBayes said:

My deadline to post witness statements is 4th July. I have a copy of their witness statement that was sent via email this morning. Is it useful to attach a redacted version of this pdf? I'm pleased to note that their defense includes images with a 2017 timestamp and a redacted contract.

 Is there a copy of the judgement where the Fairlie and Promontoria arguments won the case that I could specifically reference? I already have Fairlie covered in my draft witness statement. 

Two different judgments entirely, over a hundred years apart.

The transcript of Promontoria is from 2020 and is obviously easy to find in the forum.  

Fairlie v Fenton is over a century old but I did post a link to a scholarly excerpt from it, a few months ago when someone was struggling.

No idea where and we can't just conjure up a link, but it's for you (not us) to search the forum for both.  They are here somewhere.

KMBayes

Coupon-mad said:

KMBayes said:

My deadline to post witness statements is 4th July. I have a copy of their witness statement that was sent via email this morning. Is it useful to attach a redacted version of this pdf? I'm pleased to note that their defense includes images with a 2017 timestamp and a redacted contract.

 Is there a copy of the judgement where the Fairlie and Promontoria arguments won the case that I could specifically reference? I already have Fairlie covered in my draft witness statement. 

Two different judgments entirely, over a hundred years apart.

The transcript of Promontoria is from 2020 and is obviously easy to find in the forum.  

Fairlie v Fenton is over a century old but I did post a link to a scholarly excerpt from it, a few months ago when someone was struggling.

No idea where and we can't just conjure up a link, but it's for you (not us) to search the forum for both.  They are here somewhere.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. I have both of those judgements covered in my draft witness statement. I was wondering whether the case that you described in detail where these two arguments won would be worth citing.

Coupon-mad

Yes you can.  It's not a precedent though.

In my thread about it, did I give the Judge's name, court, claim number and date?  You can quote what I said the Judge said but be aware it is all hearsay because there's no transcript.