Duplicate thread - please ignore.

Ricky116

Duplicate thread - please ignore.

Hi,

I posted here some time ago. Quick recap: I received a PCN from UKCPM. The photos show an 11 minute stay last year. Gladstones sent a LBC, I sent a SAR to UKCPM and emailed Gladstones to hold while the SAR was actioned. Gladstones have 're-activated' my case and are again demanding payment.

Gladstones responded to my hold-email with:

The charge was issued as vehicle registration __ was not registered to park at the site. As this term was breached the charge was issued correctly. When entering the site, you agree to the terms and conditions stipulated by signage at the site. As your vehicle was observed contravening the site rules you incurred the charge. If you were unsure of the terms and conditions you ought to have refrained from parking or sought alternative parking.

I am therefore preparing for a future defence.

I have a two main reasons that I don't believe I should have to pay the PCN, both of which are true and legitimate. But I am not sure if including both of them distracts from the validity of either, so I am looking for advice:

1. An attempt was made to pay for parking, but this could not be completed and so the vehicle departed the car park. The process of entering, reviewing, attempting payments, and leaving, took 11 minutes. No contract was therefore made. The reasons the attempts failed were:
    1.1 Difficulty on the day when attempting to use the website and app on a mobile device in order to pay. (This is true, but perhaps too vague for a defence?)
    1.2 The driver of the vehicle is adamant that the parking number on the signage was incorrect, and so the car park number was repeatedly not recognised on-line.
    1.3 Assuming that the signage was correct, then difficulty in reading the signage at night would be a reasonable argument here.
    1.4 I have since discovered that the driver may have understood the large heading on the signage "Pay by Mobile" to be referring to the "PaybyPhone" service, when the car park is actually managed by the "JustPark" payment service. This is potentially why the parking number was not being recognised and payment could not be made. A PaybyPhone service is offered on the same road, across the street.
    1.5 As an additional point to prove that attempts were made, I have email records to paybyphone and the landowner to query how to pay (but I now believe these emails have no relationship with the car park). I am not sure if this is relevant, it simply backs up the veracity of the payment-difficulty claim.

2. The terms and conditions were never agreed to, and the vehicle left.
    2.1 The standard 'Beavis' argument about fine print, volume of text, and so on, meaning that 11 minutes should be considered a reasonable time frame to enter, read and consider the terms and conditions, and leave. I have 'day-time' photos to show that the signage could not be reasonably reviewed before entering (from the road). I am not sure if night-time photos would improve this defence (?).
    2.2 The "consideration period" (as part of their own code of practice) which was afforded to the driver of the vehicle was therefore insufficient at the car park. 

Considering the above, is defending on both points a good idea, or should I just rely on the latter? I am concerned that an admission that payment was attempted (but failed) imply that the terms and conditions were agreed to? 

As I have never communicated with UKCPM or Gladstones, my intention is to indicate that I am disputing the claim due to the salient points above (written with less information, more concisely) as a reply to the Gladstones email, and request that they not waste time following this to court. And then no further correspondence as I await a court claim if they decide to continue.

Thanks for any thoughts. 

EDIT: I have never identified the driver. Though I do not know how this helps me, at this stage.

KeithP

If this is about the same incident as your earlier thread, then please copy your above post as a reply on that thread.

Having done that, please edit your post above and the title of this thread to read something like...

Duplicate thread - please ignore.

Ricky116

KeithP said:

If this is about the same incident as your earlier thread, then please copy your above post as a reply on that thread.

Having done that, please edit your post above and the title of this thread to read something like...

Duplicate thread - please ignore.

Done. Thanks.