Park Watch (Deepdale Preston) County Court Defence Review - "Not Wholly within Bay"

GDB2222

Out of interest, did you include para 1 of the template? 

'It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term'

That would just an argument along the lines I indicated.  Anyway, I think it unlikely the judge will stop you making the point.

GDB2222

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?query=(Proferentem)&datelow=&sort=rank&mask_path=/eu/cases+/ew/cases+/ie/cases+/nie/cases+/scot/cases+/uk/cases+/ae/cases+/qa/cases+/sh/cases+/je/cases&datehigh=&method=boolean&highlight=1

This links to 600+ major cases where the term Proferentem was in the judgment . Obviously, look at the more recent examples. These are all from higher courts than the county court. 

B789

You can certainly argue ambiguity as that signage is rubbish, and I don't mean the quality of that picture but the information and layout. As a "consumer contract," it fails on a number of points. It may have a big £100 sign for "parking charge" but nowhere is it conspicuous or prominent what that charge is for.

Just having a few icons with teeny-weeny text under them surely cannot form a contract. You must argue the poor quality of the terms as they are not "obvious". You also need to read up on the CRA2015 as that will have quite a few good points you can use:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

As your "defence" was not really a very good one, reading more like a WS, you may still want to try and argue the point about the "single bay" technicality. It will all probably depend on judge bingo on the day.

Le_Kirk

Of course it was £$*%* parking but that photo was taken at a particular time; who can prove that just before that photo was taken there weren't loads of other cars badly parked causing the driver to have to park like that, who all drove off as soon as they saw the photographer/CCCTV/ANPR?

Marshac85

GDB2222 said:

Out of interest, did you include para 1 of the template? 

'It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term'

That would just an argument along the lines I indicated.  Anyway, I think it unlikely the judge will stop you making the point.

Thank you. Yes, this statement was in the defence submitted.

Marshac85

So I've gone for this additional statement and exhibit in the WS to be emailed over to the court and Claimant's solicitor shortly:

Please refer to exhibit XX-10. Should any exhibits produced by the Claimant evidencing signage present on the 14/06/2018 be equivalent to this example, the Defendant wishes to point out the ambiguity of the parking rule captioned “Park within the white lines of the Parking Bay Only”. The graphic nor the text caption make it explicitly clear that drivers must park within the white lines of a single Parking Bay Only”. The graphic also shows 2no. parked cars, both of which are parked “within the white lines of the Parking Bay” as instructed by the captioned text, however the graphic does not make explicit exception to either of these parking examples being incorrect or forbidden. In Contra Proferentem, this ambiguity should be interpreted in favour of the Defendant, having not drafted this term – Ref The Consumer Rights Act 2015, PART 2, section 69, subsection (1).

Fire away, or hold the phone?!

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

i don't like that argument at all!

Clutching and straws spring to mind.

Far better to just say no signs were seen and any terms were not prominent.

B789

Marshac85 said:

As a contract, all it offers the driver is that you will be charged £100 for parking there, discounted to £60 if you pay within 14 days. They can't claim that those 8 made-up icons and minuscule text make any offer.

Based on the above, in theory, they could just charge everyone £100 just for parking, whether inside a marked bay or otherwise. Now go look up unfair terms in contracts in the CRA1025.

Marshac85

Coupon-mad said:

i don't like that argument at all!

Clutching and straws spring to mind.

Far better to just say no signs were seen and any terms were not prominent.

I do agree that it smacks of desperation and could potentially do more harm by angering the judge?!

Is it better to take it out and argue that no signs were seen and any terms were not prominent. If I take it out, could I then later highlight the issue verbally if absolutely required? 

B789 said:

Marshac85 said:

As a contract, all it offers the driver is that you will be charged £100 for parking there, discounted to £60 if you pay within 14 days. They can't claim that those 8 made-up icons and minuscule text make any offer.

Based on the above, in theory, they could just charge everyone £100 just for parking, whether inside a marked bay or otherwise. Now go look up unfair terms in contracts in the CRA1025.

I'm looking through the CRA now around unfair terms. Thanks again.