N1SDT claim form received

FoxScully

I asked the General Manager of the hotel if they had a photo of the old T&Cs sign before the new one was put up, and as luck would have it - they have.



And you're in luck - PayByPhone is listed as an option (so perhaps not quite the grammatical error on the sign outside after all 

This should help with your defence, as the only difference between this car park and where you parked is the location code - which is in tiny lettering on this sign. The ParkingEye T&Cs are even tinier! Lots here that can be challenged in your defence, if you haven't submitted it already.

Coupon-mad

Just that typo to sort out...still.

drmasif

FoxScully said:

drmasif said:

V2 of Draft

3. The Defendant was visiting Newcastle University for an Interview along with his mother and parked the car in  HOTEL INDIGO NEWCASLTE UNDERGROUND parking.

4. There was a sign on entrance stating “ Tariff payable at machine or by phone on arrival” , so defendant  paid for using a pay-by-phone app.

5. Claimant has provided no evidence of signage, so the Defendant has had to do their own research which shows:

A.  Entrance sign (Blue-White) says 'tariff payable' but there's nothing to explain what/how and no GDPR wording nor any info or warning about ANPR/CCTV
B.  Entrance sign (Black) discloses that landowner as the principal, and tells you that the camera surveillance is being used for 'safety' and 'assistance in ops management'

C. Signs near machine (one  ) identify that these so-called safety cameras are in fact 'ours' (so says YourParkingSpace) and they are offering 'Public Parking', managed by ParkMaven Ltd

ParkingEye Ltd were ditched as parking operator for Hotel Indigo Newcastle some time  in the past 12 months, I believe - hence the change of signage now they are using ParkMaven Ltd (green and white signs).

There is a sign just before the two entrances to the car parks (upper and underground) which I think should really help with your defence. Look on Google Street View for the Fenkle Street Parking black sign with white text thatr reads "Access to Hotel and Restaurant".

The beauty of this sign is that it's adjacent to the car parks and it's the first sign you see as you drive in. It contains a grammatical error that supprts your defence, specifically the line: 

"Have you paid via the machine or pay by phone?" 

It would be easy to assume this means the PayByPhone app, especially as no app, website, or phone number is stated on any of the signs near the entrance to the car park. None of the original entrance signs identify ParkingEye Ltd as the operator either.

thank you very much , this is very helpful.I had taken screen shots from google steet view of the blue entrace board. but did not add Fenkle steet as the parking paid was Clayton street . will this go against me that I read Fenkle steet but paid Clayton street. As per paybyphone app if you are in that carpark first on the list 20 feet or so away shows Clayton steet especially if your are on that end of the parking.I will attach another picute to explain that.Not Submitted yet will work on Version 3 and post tomorrow.

drmasif

V3 will check spellings and paragraph numbering again before submitting. Does this look good or is this with too much detail? I am working late again tomorrow but hoping to finalise and submit on 19th. Thanks for all the help.

3. The Defendant was visiting Newcastle University for an Interview and parked in  HOTEL INDIGO NEWCASLTE UNDERGROUND parking.

4. There were  signs on entrance stating “ Tariff payable at machine or by phone on arrival” , so defendant  paid for using a pay-by-phone app to the first and closet location shown on app (Clayton street) Defendant will provide evidence of this from app  and credit card statement. This proximity can be viewed and confirmed from google maps satellite views as well.

5. Claimant has provided no evidence of signage, so the Defendant had to do their own research which shows:

A.  The 1st  sign seen as driving in ( Black Sign with white  text -on the hotel wall ) reads "Access to Hotel and Restaurant. Have you paid via the machine or pay by phone?" 

B  The 2nd Entrance signs (Blue-White) reads 'tariff payable by machine or phone on arrival' but there's nothing about location or any phone number to pay. There is  no GDPR wording nor any info or warning about ANPR/CCTV
C.  The 3rd Entrance sign (Black) discloses that landowner as the principal, and informs that the camera surveillance is being used for 'safety' and 'assistance in ops management'

D. The 4th Sign near payment machine (White with black and green writing) clearly mentions Paybyphone app but location number is in very small font.

 It would be easy to assume all these signs mean Paybyphone app, especially as no app, website, or phone number is stated on any of the signs near the entrance to the car park. None of the entrance signs identify ParkingEye Ltd as the operator either. Also If a person is in the carpark and goes on Paybyphone APP first location shown is Clayton Street parking ,few feet away, especially if parked on west side of the parking.

drmasif

also when replying how do I find email for dcb legal .name on claim is Ellen o Donnell and I could only find his linkedin but no email

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellen-o-donnell-726732140/

KeithP

Still the same spelling mistake.   
The same word spelt two different ways in the same sentence.

Coupon-mad

And it's in capitals.  Literally jumps off the page!  Please sort out the typo!

And I'd remove this:

"D. The 4th Sign near payment machine (White with black and green writing) clearly mentions Paybyphone app but location number is in very small font.
 It would be easy to assume all these signs mean Paybyphone app, especially as no app, website, or phone number is stated on any of the signs near the entrance to the car park. None of the entrance signs identify ParkingEye Ltd as the operator either. Also If a person is in the carpark and goes on Paybyphone APP first location shown is Clayton Street parking ,few feet away, especially if parked on west side of the parking."


And replace it with:

6. The black sign discloses the existence of a principal, thus the Defendant can rely upon Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any lawful contract was between the driver and the principal (Hotel) not the driver and ParkingEye.  Terms on these signs will not be enforceable by ParkingEye as the disclosure of the principal means they are acting as an agent on behalf of that principal.  The Hotel is thd only party who could sue the Defendant in this case.  Unlike in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis where this was not seen, the Claimants (mere agents at this site) have not rendered themselves personally liable on the contract, having not 'made it their own' and they are not entitled to enforce it against the other party.   

.

7.  {Renumber the entire rest of the template defence}...

FoxScully

drmasif said:

thank you very much , this is very helpful.I had taken screen shots from google steet view of the blue entrace board. but did not add Fenkle steet as the parking paid was Clayton street . will this go against me that I read Fenkle steet but paid Clayton street. As per paybyphone app if you are in that carpark first on the list 20 feet or so away shows Clayton steet especially if your are on that end of the parking.I will attach another picute to explain that.Not Submitted yet will work on Version 3 and post tomorrow.

If you can demonstrate that that the PayByPhone app shows Clayton Street as the nearest parking location when parked in or nearby the Fenkle Street car park, it would be reasonable to assert that you were following instructions on the signs at the car park entrance in good faith.

The PayByPhone location code on the sign inside the carpark is also so small as to be difficult to discern at a reasonable distance, nor does any of the text on the sign instruct you on how to use the location code, or that it must be used when paying for parking. I would recommend that you don't refer to the location code in your defence, simply that you used the PayByPhone app to pay for the nearest car park, which you understood to be the one you were in at the time.

Le_Kirk

4. There were  signs on entrance stating “ Tariff payable at machine or by phone on arrival” , so defendant  paid for using a pay-by-phone app to the first and closet location shown on app (Clayton street) Defendant will provide evidence of this from app  and credit card statement. This proximity can be viewed and confirmed from google maps satellite views as well.

......... and this typo.

drmasif

final version (hopefully) Thanks to all of you for your time. I am really amazed by the advice and support received on these forums.

3. Defendant was visiting Newcastle for an interview and parked at Hotel Indigo.

4. There were signs at the entrance stating, “Tariff payable at machine or by phone on arrival”. The defendant used PayByPhone app to pay for the nearest car park, which the defendant understood to be the one he was in at the time. Defendant will provide evidence of this from the app and credit card statement.

5.     The claimant has provided no evidence of signage, so the defendant had to do his own research which shows:

A. The first sign seen upon driving in (black sign with white text on the hotel wall) reads, "Access to Hotel and Restaurant. Have you paid via the machine or pay by phone?"

B. The second entrance sign (blue-white) reads, "Tariff payable by machine or phone on arrival," but there's nothing about location or any phone number to pay. There is no GDPR wording nor any info or warning about ANPR/CCTV.

C. The third entrance sign (black) discloses that the landowner is the principal and informs that camera surveillance is being used for 'safety' and 'assistance in ops management'.

6.     The black sign discloses the existence of a principal, thus the defendant can rely upon Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169. Any lawful contract was between the driver and the principal (Hotel), not the driver and ParkingEye. Terms on these signs will not be enforceable by ParkingEye as the disclosure of the principal means they are acting as an agent on behalf of that principal. The Hotel is the only party who could sue the defendant in this case. Unlike in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis, where this was not seen, the claimants (mere agents at this site) have not rendered themselves personally liable on the contract, having not 'made it their own', and they are not entitled to enforce it against the other party.