Re: County Court Claim - UKPC

hsadat

Car1980 said:

The Claimant particulars state they are owed the amount claimed solely based on a contractual term on their sign, which states "No parking between 21.30 and 7.30pm". This constitutes a "forbidding contract" where no offer actually exists and no consideration could be exchanged. Secondly, it is also voided under the doctrine of impracticability. Nobody is permitted to visit the gym between these times according to the Claimant.

You also need to stick this in.

Thank you so much mate, not sure if I've done it right but her is the revised paragraph 3 and the other bit added to it

3. On 01/10/2024  and 07/10/2024, the Defendant, a paying member of PureGym Victoria Road Retail Park, parked solely to attend the gym. PureGym had only recently introduced a keypad registration system after 21:30. Although a large roller banner inside the gym instructed members to use a tablet, that banner is PureGym’s signage and forms no contract with UKPC. UKPC’s own external signs failed to mention any keypad requirement or PureGym’s advertised extended parking, creating ambiguity. The Defendant holds contemporaneous proof of gym entry codes for both visits, demonstrating legitimate use of the site. The Claimant’s outdated and incomplete signage made compliance impossible for genuine patrons and failed to form a fair or transparent contract with the Defendant.

4. The Claimant particulars state they are owed the amount claimed solely based on a contractual term on their sign, which states "No parking between 21.30 and 7.30pm". This constitutes a "forbidding contract" where no offer actually exists and no consideration could be exchanged. Secondly, it is also voided under the doctrine of impracticability. Nobody is permitted to visit the gym between these times according to the Claimant.