PCN with out of date VNC so (presumably) missed letters - sanity check process

ParkingMad

Is this Travis Street car park, JustPark Location ID 525137 ?

Ricky116

ParkingMad said:

Is this Travis Street car park, JustPark Location ID 525137 ?

That's it, yeah!

Ricky116

I am trying to put together my response. I'm finding it quite tough to get things right.

If England/Wales allows claims to be made against registered keepers in cases where the driver cannot be identified (and assuming that they follow the correct procedure) then I'm not sure if there is any point arguing that they cannot claim against me, requesting they provide identification of driver, don't mention of Elliot v Loake, etc.

Also, I am still concerned that my main argument is that no contract was entered, but my secondary argument is that payment was attempted but not completed. I believe contract law says that a contract is formed once the following critera are met "offer; acceptance; consideration (that is, money or money’s worth); certainty of terms; and intention to create legal relations.".

All of these come before the execution of the contract: the payment of the money. Therefore, if I indicate that payment was attempted, then I am implicitly stating that a contract was already formed and payment was outstanding. This is a dilemma. 

Anyway, that is mainly an issue for the official court defence.

How does this sound:

Dear _,

As the registered keeper of the vehicle on the stated date, I deny being the driver, any liability, or having entered into any contractual agreement. I request that you drop this frivolous claim as soon as possible and avoid wasting time pursuing it in court. 

I dispute your assertion that any contractual agreement was entered upon the vehicle simply entering the site. The site location and signage is clearly insufficient to make an informed agreement prior to entering the site, where instead it is necessary to enter the site, find and access a place to safely stop the vehicle, exit the vehicle, locate and approach the relevant signage, review the signage, and consider the offered parking services along with all associated terms and conditions. Only then can a decision be made and a contract accepted or declined. During the instance in question, the proposed contract was declined and no agreement was made, with the driver subsequently returning to the vehicle and the vehicle evidently departing the site at the earliest opportunity.

If you intend to still pursue this claim despite an agreement for parking services clearly not being formed on the date in question, please provide a copy of images of signage at the site, at the material time, which show that such an agreement could reasonably be made prior to entering the site from the busy city centre road. Please note the Private Parking Code of Practice which outlines the government's intention around appropriate signage.

The vehicle was photographed entering and departing the site within 11 minutes. What is the 'cooling-off' period that the site has agreed with the landowners? Because 11 minutes is evidently unsuitable for potential clients to carry out the aforementioned process to decide whether or not to enter a contract for parking services, as well as process the necessary payments as part of forming such a contract. Please again note the relevant section of the Private Parking Code of Practice which reaffirms contract law that requires drivers be given appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept terms and conditions, as well as find and access a vacant parking bay, and leave the premises.

I note that the site signage indicates a mobile phone app as the primary means of payment. On the date in question, this required (at a minimum) installation, account set-up, submission of site details, submission of vehicle information, and submission of payment details: the success and speed of which are subject to the technical aptitude of the user, and quality of local network access. With the payment terms unable to be processed, due to software issues or otherwise, a subsequent departure of the site can also be considered a clear rejection of a contractual agreement for parking services. 

I reiterate my request for your pursuit of this claim to be dropped without wasting court time, as during the evidenced 11 minutes no contract could be established and no parking services were availed of.

Yours faithfully,

_

Is there anything better than the CoP I should use here? The fact that it is withdrawn makes referencing it feel a bit shaky.

Thanks for any help!

Umkomaas

I am trying to put together my response. I'm finding it quite tough to get things right.

Response to who?

Coupon-mad

 Therefore, if I indicate that payment was attempted, then I am implicitly stating that a contract was already formed and payment was outstanding. This is a dilemma. 

That's easy when you get your head around the fact there are two distinct and secretly escalating 'clause stages' to this alleged contract:

1. Paying the tariff
2. Agreeing to pay a 'penalty' of £100 on default.

Clause 2 cannot be read (at all).  That's the one you are denying existed because it was not communicated prominently (or at all) by that sign.

Ricky116

Fair enough, that makes much more sense to me now. This provides some useful wording also. Thanks!

Response to who?

The Gladstones solicitor. It would be my first communication with them since I requested 30 days hold furthering their LBC while I completed a SAR, reviewed and sought debt advice. I want to send a 'robust' reply to them as per Coupon-mad, to indicate that I have a defence and (in theory) help them decide it isn't worth their time... though I'm guessing court is almost certain at this stage. 

As per the early parts of this thread, there were a few mistakes made with identifying both the landowner and the parking company, and discovering the PCN after it had been sent to debt collection, so I squandered the opportunity to catch it early and appeal before it got to LBC stage.