Claim form

Car1980

Particulars are poor. Was the breach failure to display a permit or ask the landowner for authorisation to park?

A retrospective permission to park would be fatal for them, if achievable.

brighton74

East side Entrance/Exit Goldstone Street 

brighton74

Sign East Side Entrance/Exit Goldstone Street

brighton74

Original letter 

Coupon-mad

Was the driver permitted to park?

brighton74

No the driver wasn’t permitted to park

Coupon-mad

And was the Defendant the driver? Or just the registered keeper? It is safe to tell us.

Coupon-mad

brighton74 said:

Original letter 

Coupon-mad said:

We don't see many BW Legal cases.

This place?

It's odd if so, because this car park was always run (I use the word loosely) by One Parking Solution. Or were you round the back and not in the car park?

Nobody parks there BTW! Horrible trap. Was it actually in this car park?  I suspect not?

It is also BHCC Council owned.

OK, so go on MCOL using your Govt Gateway account & use the claim form password and file an Acknowledgment of Service as the second post in the NEWBIES thread explains in pictures.

Don't miss the deadline after that for filing a Defence. Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Show us your draft paragraph 3.

Johnersh

No dice. The particulars say terms were accepted on entry. Let's look at that...

1. The perimeter sign (partially obscured) says restrictions in place see the other signs. So you actually have to go into the carpark to see those.
2. The parking sign says merely entering the land without a permit is a breach of the contract. As is parking without a permit. So now:

(1) In a Thornton v shoe lane scenario you've got new terms after entry.
(2) The terms say you've entered and agreed. So, in principle this is just impossible to perform. The mere act of coming onto the land even absent parking was a breach, which the sign says immediately entitled them to issue a PCN.

It's impossible, isn't it? The claimant could never perform the contract. The o/p presumably can't obtain a permit and wasn't offered one once on the land, so it couldn't be remedied. I don't see how this wording can ever fly.

Coupon-mad

brighton74 said:

Original letter 

Just to add before I forget on this one, Premier Park don't state a 'period of parking' in their NTK.