Out of hours parking

tradershads

Parked for only 10 minutes 10 seconds to eat some food in a trad/retail park.  The front facing sign says the standard maximum 3 hours parking and at the back of the sign it states the timings of parking (pictures below)  

Coupon-mad

Just use the template defence and it'll be discontinued by the New Year before any hearing.

But also get your revenge: please read this message and do the vital,  current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people with unfair charges who are facing horrific, scary court claims.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation, Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

tradershads

As they have stated the breach, I was thinking of using the following as my defence point 3 in the template:


3 The Particulars of Claim allege “no parking out of hours” but fail to demonstrate that this term was clearly and prominently brought to the Defendant’s attention before parking. At the entrance, the front-facing sign contained no time restrictions, and the only sign stating the hours was positioned with its wording facing away from approaching vehicles, making it impossible to read without first entering the site. Other signs displaying the time restriction were not visible from the Defendant’s parking position and, at the material time (around 23:09), the available lighting was inadequate for a driver to clearly read the small text from a moving vehicle or from the parking position. The Defendant was parked for only 10 minutes and 10 seconds and did not obstruct any activity. This is an unusually short period to be treated as a breach, particularly in a retail park setting, and in the absence of clear and prominent notice, no contractual liability can arise. The term is unusual and onerous and, under *Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd* \[1989], should have been highlighted with exceptional prominence. The BPA Code of Practice also requires both adequate illumination and a fair opportunity to read and consider the terms before they can be deemed accepted, which did not occur. The alleged term fails the transparency and fairness requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is therefore unenforceable.

Gr1pr

Change parked for 10 minutes to something more suitable like stopped for a short time

Change defendants parking position to defendants position 

Avoid the word parking where possible 

There was no offer of parking out of hours  no consideration,  no acceptance so no parking contract , the signage is forbidding,  think about it 

tradershads

Is this point 3 better?

3. The Particulars of Claim allege “no parking out of hours” but fail to demonstrate that this term was clearly and prominently brought to the Defendant’s attention before stopping.

3.1 At the site entrance, the front-facing sign contained no time restrictions. The only sign stating the hours was positioned with its wording facing away from approaching vehicles, making it impossible to read without first entering the site.

3.2 Other signs displaying the time restriction were not visible from the Defendant’s position and, at the material time (around 23:09), the available lighting was insufficient for a driver to clearly read the small text from a moving vehicle or from where the vehicle had come to a brief stop.

3.3 The Defendant stopped for a short time — approximately 10 minutes and 10 seconds — without obstructing any activity.

3.4 There was no contractual offer to stop “out of hours,” no consideration, and no acceptance; therefore, no contract could be formed.

3.5 The signage is forbidding in nature, communicating a prohibition rather than offering terms capable of acceptance. In PCM (UK) v Bull & Others [2016], the court held that forbidding signage does not constitute an offer and therefore cannot create a contractual agreement.

3.6 This is an unusually strict and onerous term for a retail park, and under Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989], such a term should have been given exceptional prominence.

3.7 The BPA Code of Practice requires clear terms, adequate illumination, and a fair opportunity to read and consider any terms before they can be deemed accepted — requirements which were not met in this case.

3.8 The alleged term fails the transparency and fairness requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is therefore unenforceable.