Please check my draft defence! Parallel Parking LTD
I have read and re read all of the posts and have got together a draft defence to send off. Would you mind please having a look through it for me? See below:
The facts known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.
3. The driver parked in an unmarked area off a public road for no longer than ten minutes to drop off their passengers to a fitness class. The driver denies seeing any parking restriction signs or notices when pulling up to the area or stopping the vehicle. The area in question seemed to the driver to be of mixed use with clearly marked parking bays on the opposite side of the road but the area where the driver parked had no parking bays or indeed any boundary marks. Upon receiving a parking charge notice the driver went back to the area to examine the notices; there were yellow and black signs with miniscule text attached to what seemed to the defendant a derelict building.
4. Moreover, the building in question with these signs attached does not have any clear boundary. As stated, the area where the driver stopped the vehicle seemed of mixed use, with a public road leading to the area where the driver stopped the vehicle. Had the driver been made aware that this area was marked for permit holders only at that time or indeed seen the signage stating so, the driver would not have stopped the vehicle there and found somewhere else to park.
5. The signage on the building in question is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To claim that a contract to park was created when it is expressly forbidden is perverse. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 , UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6, Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2  – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
The driver has been unable to locate the owner of this land on which Parallel Parking LTD operates to discuss the trespassing episode and therefore has not been able to discuss a resolution.The rest of the defence is largely a copy and paste affair, with some small changes
- All Categories
- 338.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 248.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 447.5K Spending & Discounts
- 230.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 171K Life & Family
- 243.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards