CCBC letter from hotel car park

lincoln_dj

Le_Kirk said:

Coupon-mad said:

Save that till WS stage.

Be fairly generic with your paragraph 3 facts and rationale for defending - signs weren't clear, we assume - and add in the words I wrote earlier this week in another PEye claim thread about them adding £20 even though that's never been on their signage.

But be careful how you write this, if you say there were NO signs, how can you contend the signs don't mention the £20; perhaps you went back to check after you had received the PCN.

There is a sign at the back of the car park, but I was nowhere near that originally. I entered the car park from the front, parked in the 2nd/3rd space in and walked out via the front. The only relevant sign is at the entrance (which does measure more than the required 450x450mm) that states "for patrons only - for use only whilst registered at reception" and "see signage in car park for terms".

The only other sign I saw in the car park as I walked out was a "hotel commitment" sign saying CCTV recording, dont leave valuables, etc... Nothing relating to terms or ParkingEye.

I'm going to state that ParkingEye's own website states signs should be “large enough and easily understood” in order to comply with The BPA and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Sign A (see appendix) states that terms are in the car park, yet I did not see any other signs in there, apart from the green sign as per Photo B (see appendix).

The same ParkingEye website page states “it’s important that there are enough signs around a site to ensure people have had every opportunity to see them. If a driver can credibly make the case ‘I couldn’t see any signs,’ then signage is inadequate, and they can rightly have a parking charge appealed.”

I put it to the court that the signage at this site was inadequate and therefore can rightly appeal the parking charge."

Coupon-mad

Don't use this Perry Mason phrase:

"I put it to the court..."

Please go find the other case where the defence is already written and covers the fact that £20 is not on PEye signs and is not part of the contract. I wrote it this week.

No idea which thread.  Search for keywords!  Change to NEWEST (never 'best match'...).

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Please go find the other case where the defence is already written and covers the fact that £20 is not on PEye signs and is not part of the contract. I wrote it this week.

No idea which thread.  Search for keywords!  Change to NEWEST (never 'best match'...).

@Coupon-mad, possibly this one? 8 August  <<<<<< LINK

Coupon-mad

Oh yes!  That's it.

Can be added to para 2 of pretty much ANY PEye defence, now that they've made up a +£20 contractual cost 'late fee' that wasn't actually likely to have been in the contract (the signs):

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.  It must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss exists.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished).  Further, in a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated by £20 which was not on the signs.  The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim.

lincoln_dj

One of the two main points of my defence is that I didn't see any signs with contractual terms on (which I genuinely didn't) so won't talk about there being the £20 missing from them.
I've got photos of the area, clearly showing no signs either around where the car was parked, nor along the route walking out of the car park.

(My other main point is for the disproportionate fees / added legal costs etc)

I've included mention of this past case, as it seemed pertinent:

(a)  Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''.

I've now completed my defence document so will get it sent out Monday. I'm guessing we don't post our full defence up on here until after the court decision?

B789

You just show us the paragraphs you've added. You don't remove any of the others. Every paragraph should be numbered sequentially.

Why could you not have gone back to the location after receiving the PCN in order to review the signs that formed the contract you allegedly breached? You should use the wording given by @Coupon-mad.

1505grandad

" Further, in a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated by £20 which was not on the signs."

"One of the two main points of my defence is that I didn't see any signs with contractual terms on (which I genuinely didn't) so won't talk about there being the £20 missing from them."

Surely your research (this forum) has ascertained that the point re £20 is valid  -  it really should be kept in.
"Strict proof" will be required from them that the sum was on the signs.

Coupon-mad

so won't talk about there being the £20 missing from them.

No.

You must...

lincoln_dj

B789 said:

You just show us the paragraphs you've added. You don't remove any of the others. Every paragraph should be numbered sequentially.

Why could you not have gone back to the location after receiving the PCN in order to review the signs that formed the contract you allegedly breached? You should use the wording given by @Coupon-mad.

I went back for photos, but didn;t include any "contractual" sign as there was none anywhere near me.
The original reason for not going back to check for more signs at the time was because I'd stupidly ignored the first two correspondence. The photos I have clearly show no relevant signs anywhere near where I was parker or along the exit route.

I've not been back since as I've been on an oil rig since starting this and not home until Thursday evening. Want to get the defence sent off before then ideally. Is it worth me asking a friend to take a photo of any other signs? There was one (IIRC) right at the back of the car park, nowhere near where I was - would you mention that?


And I'll change it so all the template paragraphs are in. I only removed some as some didn't seem to apply to me (what with not seeing any other signs at the time).

Thanks again everyone!


My own paragraphs:

ADDED TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS:

3.    The driver was visiting an adjacent hotel to view a wedding venue and mistakenly parked at the wrong hotel. Since there were no visible signs in the area between parked car and the entrance/exit of the car park that mentioned any details of a potential contract, it was believed the car would “be OK there for 20-30 minutes”. Details of the area are available, including a map and photos of the various views from the car location and entrance.

4.    ParkingEye’s own website [URL here] states signs should be “large enough and easily understood” in order to comply with The BPA and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A sign at the entrance states that terms are in the car park, yet the defendant did not see any other signs in there, apart from a green sign detailing the “hotel commitment”.

5.    The same ParkingEye website page [URL here] states “it’s important that there are enough signs around a site to ensure people have had every opportunity to see them. If a driver can credibly make the case ‘I couldn’t see any signs,’ then signage is inadequate, and they can rightly have a parking charge appealed.” There were no visible signs within the vicinity of the car location, nor on the route between the car location and car park entrance/exit. The defendant has photos to show this.

ADDED TO THE CONCLUSION SECTION:

30.    The defendant believes that the signage at this site was inadequate and, in relation to items 3, 4 and 5.  above can therefore rightly appeal the parking charge.

31.    This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

Coupon-mad

You don't need para 30 because the Template Defence already covers unclear signs, in the section about Spurling vBradshaw, etc.

You don't need that para 31 because the Template Defence already smashes home the point about the added fake costs.

ABSOLUTELY REMOVE THIS - eek no!

"Since there were no visible signs in the area between parked car and the entrance/exit of the car park that mentioned any details of a potential contract, it was believed the car would “be OK there for 20-30 minutes”. Details of the area are available, including a map and photos of the various views from the car location and entrance."