County Court Claim received, parking fine from 2 years ago - drafting a defence

Qrbrrbl

I've now typed out further detail into item 4 on the template, then additional wording in new item 5 and 6. The main point I will be arguing are non-compliant entrance signage that doesnt conform to the standards set in the AOS CoP and non-compliant terms signage that do not bring prominence to the parking charge for overstaying the maximum period and are located at around 9ft making them illegible from ground level.

Reading through the rest of the template though it seems that illegible signage and the Red Hand Rule are both covered in later points of the template defence - do I therefore need to include them in here or should I remove those extra paragraphs I have typed out and leave it as the template response?

I dont think I have found anything in the template around entrance signage so will lkely leave that in there.

Ref Planning Permission etc, I'm struggling to find anything related to ANPR and whilst the original planning application for McDonalds is listed there isnt any sort of documentation on the Leeds portal to back it so I cant see what the original max parking time was. Reading other threads on here though it sounds like those wouldnt be a defence on a parking ticket, just to make more trouble for the POC?

I did complain to McDonalds a few weeks ago but havent had a response from them.

Is it worth mentioning grace periods? I had overstayed by 15 mins but the minimum grace period under the AOS CoP is 10 minutes so not sure whether that would get me anywhere.

Coupon-mad

Forget planning permission and grace period, as this was 15 mins extra.  But if that 15 mins was spent driving around and using the drive-thru then you could argue that the car was not parked for more than the allowed parking time.

Qrbrrbl

No, I sat in to eat and theres only probably 15 parking spaces so cant claim to have been driving around either.

Should I include the legibility of signage in my own poiints or leave that to the template points and focus my own points on the entrance signage as that isnt covered elsewhere?

Coupon-mad

I'd talk about lack of clear and obvious entrance signs and that there were no prominent signs anywhere near the bay used. nor any warning signs in view on the route from the car on foot, as the driver walked towards and into McDonalds.  As such, there was no meeting of minds; no agreed contract.

Qrbrrbl

OK - first attempt then. These are added after paragraph 2 of the template.

3. On the 22nd November 2019 the Defendant visited McDonalds at Ring Road, Horsforth, Leeds, LS16 8EB. The Defendant parked in the car park at this location for 106 minutes before leaving, during which time the Defendant was a customer at the aforementioned McDonalds restaurant. At no point when parking did the Defendant see any clear, prominent signs showing the contractual arrangements near the bay used. There was also no signage easily visible between the bay used and the restaurant. The Defendant therefore does not agree that any form of contractual relationship was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant that would render the Claimants charges valid.

4. The Defendant believes that the Claimants entrance signage at the above location does not comply with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme’s Code of Practice version 7 January 2018 which was in effect at the time of the alleged offence (AOS CoP). The AOS CoP requires that entrance signage be situated in such a manner that “[…] it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.” (AOS CoP Appendix B – Entrance Signs”. At the location above, the entrance signage is located alongside the entrance with the bottom of the sign being on the floor. When driving into the car park, this is not clear and obvious, and was hidden from the Defendants view by the vehicle being driven at the time.

5. The Defendant believes that the Claimants signage within the carpark at the above location does not comply with the AOS CoP. The AOS CoP requires that signage stating terms and conditions “[…] must be conspicuous and legible” (Clause 18.3). Signage within this car park – with the exception of the signage in front of the disabled bays where the Defendant did not park – is located at a height of approximately 9ft with the bulk of the terms and conditions in a small font, making them illegible from ground level, especially when still within a vehicle.

6. The Defendant believes that the £100 charge for overstaying the maximum parking period is unreasonable and therefore must be clearly identified with attention drawn to this clause in accordance with Lord Dennings “Red Hand Rule”, which states “[…] the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.” The signage at the above location displays the charges for overstaying the maximum parking term in relatively small black text on a large sign which does not stand out in any way.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

The Defendant parked in the car park at this location for 106 minutes.

No you didn't.

Qrbrrbl

Presume that just a case of making them work for it? Dont say anything you dont have to?

Coupon-mad

The camera clocks (in and out, if two cameras exist) are not synched.  The claimant says your car was there between xx unproven times.

Now it's probably about right(ish), all told, but you don't go stating as fact something that isn't correct.

You were not parked for that time. Fact. The times are not in your knowledge anyway. All you know is that this was an unremarkable visit, did not take excessively long and you saw no signs to alert you to any alleged contract or maximum parking time.

If you had been fairly alerted to such an onerous risk, obviously you'd have left. 

Qrbrrbl

Gotcha. Pretty sure it's two separate cameras and my Google timeline has different times as well. Is that another potential avenue?

Coupon-mad

Absolutely. Minutes different? Suggests it is unreliable.