Premier Park Ltd Claim Form & Defence - Advice

SuperE20199

Thank you all. Genuine top humans.

SuperE20199

Amendments made as suggested by @Coupon-mad and @Le_Kirk.

I wondered if it is worthwhile making reference to the WS from the claimant where they list in the site details the following:

12. The Terms and Conditions of the Site, Inter alia, express the following conditions for any motorist
using the Site;
Maximum stay 2 hours.
No return within 1 hour.
13. The signs are displayed at various points throughout the site as evidenced by the attached site
plan. Exhibit reference GS3, and the Driver would have had the opportunity to read and
understand them when entering and then parking at the site. An objective observer would consider
this action to have been done in acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. It is the signage that
forms the basis of the contract between the driver and the Claimant (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Contract’).

However, the signs (as I show in my evidence) now state 'Maximum stay 3 hours, no return within 1 hour'

Is it worth referencing against their WS?

Edit, as below:

8. Inadequate & Confusing Signage: 

The signage upon entering xx Retail Park (See Exhibit xx - 02) states ‘Free Parking for Customers Only - 3 Hours Maximum Stay’. There is no clear signal that this retail park is governed by two separate parking firms (Group Nexus and Premier Park) other than a much smaller and unclear sign that still states this is ‘xx Retail Park’

In Paragraph 12 of the Claimants WS, they state ‘The Terms and Conditions of the Site, Inter alia, express the following conditions for any motorist using the Site; Maximum stay 2 hours. No return within 1 hour’ however, please note that all signs at xx Retail Park show a maximum stay of 3 hours that cover the whole of the Retail Park. (See Exhibit xx - 02)

9. Recent Press coverage: 

The car park in question has come under scrutiny from other xx residents regarding the confusing signage, as well as inadequate ANPR as reported in the xx Observer (LINK) (See Exhibit xx - 03) within this exhibit, you will see claims from other users of the car park that drivers can move between car parks, without going past the ANPR cameras. I cannot rule out that this is the case for this matter.

SuperE20199

Also, the deadline says "no later than 21st February"

Is it best to hold off sending this until closer to close of business tomorrow?!

Coupon-mad

I guess you have sent it now?! 

SuperE20199

Yes, sent it on deadline day!

SuperE20199

Hi all,

Court date is creeping ever closer and I've just received a 'Trial Bundle' from Gladstones.

Do I need to complete something similar? 

The letter also states once again that 'The Claimant, without intending any discourtesy to the court, hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the final hearing'

Does this mean it will just be me and the Judge? Or likely to be someone from Gladstones there too?

Le_Kirk

See your Notice of Allocation to see what you should supply and by when. Generally when claimants sate they will not be attending, they send a rent-by-the-hour advocate.

SuperE20199

Morning all - today was Court day...and

CASE DISMISSED! 

The Judge was complimentary about my evidence, and the pictures showing the signage being confusing between the two car parks in question. He also said that although their NTK in their evidence was compliant, there was no way to prove it had arrived with me and therefore dismissed the case. The final note he made was the pictures they had provided from their ANPR cameras showed no signage.

No costs awarded but I'm happy enough with the win. I'll let @Coupon-mad do the honours...

Thank you once again for all your help, definitely worth fighting!

Coupon-mad

Yay! Well done you!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

SuperE20199

One thing I didn't ask about was getting written confirmation of this decision - do you know if this will come through? Is it post or email? Or do I just relax now knowing that the case is dismissed and nothing further is required?