Residential PCN vs VCS

Coupon-mad

ijapa1 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Was this a shared parking area?  Only for visitors?

Or your cousin's allocated & numbered bay?

Can the cousin get some pics of the lack of signage there? And one close up of a sign.  We can look at those pics which might help.

The parking spot where I was ticketed is my cousin’s allocated space in his rental apartment. 

There’s a sign post there and picture below. This was just a one time mistake from me not to put the permit in the car. My proposed defence is to leverage the nonexistence of any third party enforcing parking in my cousin’s tenant agreement. In my previous comment, I have lifted a copy and paste of what the tenant agreement covers with regards to parking.

Didn't they take the equally important view I asked to see, of the bays, showing lack of signage?  Or is your cousin saying that sign is in or literally right next to their bay?

That sign offers nothing to non-permit holders like you so that means there was no contract. That's an alternative defence point. The Judge might like that.

ijapa1

Coupon-mad said:

ijapa1 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Was this a shared parking area?  Only for visitors?

Or your cousin's allocated & numbered bay?

Can the cousin get some pics of the lack of signage there? And one close up of a sign.  We can look at those pics which might help.

The parking spot where I was ticketed is my cousin’s allocated space in his rental apartment. 

There’s a sign post there and picture below. This was just a one time mistake from me not to put the permit in the car. My proposed defence is to leverage the nonexistence of any third party enforcing parking in my cousin’s tenant agreement. In my previous comment, I have lifted a copy and paste of what the tenant agreement covers with regards to parking.

Didn't they take the equally important view I asked to see, of the bays, showing lack of signage?  Or is your cousin saying that sign is in or literally right next to their bay?

That sign offers nothing to non-permit holders like you so that means there was no contract. That's an alternative defence point. The Judge might like that.

The sign appears to be right in-front of area marked C, which is my cousin’s allocated space. There’s no other signage other than the one in the picture below.

Based on this, do you reckon I can include an alternative defence to the effect that there is no contract between VSC and myself? 

Coupon-mad

Wow look how high that sign is!  Well above top of door jamb height (nine feet up) and not placed under one of the lights. Wonder why not, eh?!

Use all possible defence points in paragraph 3 and maybe add an extra 4 & 5 to cover it:

- unlit sign nine feet up; no contract possible.

- even if the court finds that a driver could have read it in the dark, the sign only offers parking to 'permit-holders only'.  Nothing of value is offered to non-permit holders, therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible.  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.*

- further and in the alternative, the Defendant was authorised by their cousin, the bay owner, (who will sign a witness statement) and whose lease does not require ... blah blah ... primacy of contract which allows visitors unfettered use...

* to help you later at WS and evidence stage, this link includes the PACE v Lengyel transcript.  Read it now to understand the legal argument that no contract was on offer to non-permit holders:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/l7sboclnrlwastfw9m4vf/Main-WS-Forum-PDF.pdf?rlkey=bhj7tu24u99unbh23wty0kf29&e=1&dl=0