Euro Parking Services/Gladstones Solicitors - Court Claim (Defence help required)

Gr1pr

Seems to me that the alleged breach is not pleaded in the deficient POC,  regardless of the subsequent WS and Exhibits 

Originally you thought that he thought that he was using the onsite cash machine,  an authorised option on the sign, but 2 things stand out to me, parking was not wholly within the bay, but partly on yellow hatchings,  a breach of the signage,  plus the WS saying that the defendant parked and left the site,  possibly to the chippy next door because he is carrying something on his return, we have no idea if he used the onsite ATM or not

Presumably he is aware that numerous cameras track him when away from the house  ?

Presumably he knows to avoid yellow hatchings too. ? Especially parking on or over them. ?

They will or could allege 2 breaches of the contract on the signs, but both actions are forbidden,  ergo no parking contract was formed  nevermind that no breaches were identified in the POC anyway,  hence Chan and Akande , the claim form should have identified them, but didn't 

palegreenghost

After seeing the photos he said that he must've parked up, visited the chippy and then left.

When you say that they could allege 2 breaches of the contract but both actions are forbidden, why is that? Why is it that no contract was formed? I'm just trying to get my head around it, I apologise for not having a great grasp of the situation it's embarrassing that so much is going over my head. 

He was feeling more than a little defeated upon seeing the WS and evidence, he was talking about paying them but I told him I'd see what advice I could get, I guess what I'm asking is does he have a good shot still?

How does the claimant's WS and evidence factor into his WS, what is the best course of action? Should he mention that deficient POC actually made it difficult to write a defence, or has that ship sailed?

Edit: I think I'm understanding this, if the signs forbid the actions rather than offering them as conditions of a contract, then no contract can be created by doing those forbidden things?

Gr1pr

Gr1pr said:

So a brief stop on site,  reading the wordy signs,  rejecting the private parking company contract and leaving promptly , explanation is in the link below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81783056#Comment_81783056

I gave you the link to the explanation in a previous reply , a few hours ago,  quoted above , they forbade him to park on the hatching, they forbade any actions apart from the ones authorised on the signs, he wasn't agreeing to pay £100 to park in that manner,  half in a bay,  half out, or to pay £100 to park whilst going to the chippy 

There is no way that he or me would read the sign and agree to park the car over the hatchings, go to the chippy next door,  and pay £100 to do so. !

30 or 50 years ago he could have done so, without any punishment apart from a verbal telling off by the landowner or manager, but not these days. ( you can't replicate what he did either, or me. ) , it's a different world  !

The solicitors should have added the alleged one or two breaches in the claim form 

He has to file his WS ASAP,  before he breaches that WS deadline date, especially as he has theirs above 


If i tell you that I am charging you £100 for every reply from me from this point on, are going to agree to pay me that amount. ? £100 fir ach and every reply,    Now that you are now warned  ?

palegreenghost

Okay, thank you I get what you're saying now. I'll help him with his WS today and get it sent out asap. 

palegreenghost

I tried to explain everything to my dad, but he doesn't fully understand what I mean when I say that he's chosen not to accept the contract. He's saying he wants to pay them the money because he seems to think that because he didn't see the sign that he's somehow accepted what was on the sign and therefore entered into this contract. I said that if you did see the sign, would you willingly accept it? 

If I'm honest it's been stressful trying to parse all the information and advice I've been getting so I think he can tell that it's stressing me out somewhat and now he's regretting it. I think he's been spooked by this evidence that they've provided.

I'm trying to convince him that paying over £250 for 7 minutes of being at that location isn't a great idea. 

Gr1pr

He has got this far,  so tell him to submit his WS and let a judge decide , then pay whatever the judge says so the true outstanding amount,  in full, to their lawyers,   ASAP after the hearing , if he loses

But,  if the claimant fails to prove their case,  he pays nothing at all, people, regardless of the circumstances,  a win

So the amount he owes,  if anything at all, is between £0 and £250, but probably between £0 and £212, at the end 

Paying the full amount without letting the judge decide is foolish , he might end up owing nothing at all and have cost them money 

palegreenghost

I agree. I've told him to at least get this witness statement written. 

palegreenghost

Unfortunately my dad just told me the reason he doesn't want to go through with this is because he might have skin cancer, he just got back from the doctor today. He doesn't want to deal with the additional stress of going to court and whatever else might be involved. I said that's his choice and I don't want to pressure him. Thanks everyone for the help you've provided so far, I have my own court hearing in February for a parking dispute so it's been useful for me regardless.  

Gr1pr

He should still let the court decide,  because its only money and won't be higher than the total on the claim form,  more likely to be a lot less, typically around £212

When is the hearing date. ?

Coupon-mad

When is the hearing date?

Last week in January according to that WS.

There are many issues with the signs:

- there is no actual photo evidence of seven signs in place and in particular there's no evidence of compliant entrance signs actually being there at all. The WS has a mocked up map. That's not evidence. It says there are two entrance signs (the different coloured dots, I think nos 1 & 4 on the pretend map?) but in the footage neither of them are shown... which is suspicious, given the map suggests one of them should have been in view in the later image where his car has left. Where are these entrance signs then? Where's the evidence?

- the only sign we know exists in reality is against a fence. Whilst it's arguable the driver might have seen it if he had approached it, the fact is the driver didn't see it. Understandable because without a mandatory PRIVATE LAND large 'P' entrance sign, arriving drivers are not on alert to look for terms & conditions.

- even if he had read it, the mock up desktop version shows there is no contract on offer (at all) to all-comers. It didn't offer him anything. There has to be both (a) something of value offered, a licence to park, like in ParkingEye v Beavis, and (b) a chance to read the terms and reject them and leave if you don't accept the offer. It's not that he CHOSE not to enter into a contract. There wasn't one. This is also borne out by the fact that the landowner authority says there Is ZERO minutes observation period on offer for unauthorised vehicles. Zero minutes to read terms is impossible in contract law and the 2023 landowner agreement also breached the IPC CoP that existed then and stressed the importance of entrance signs and allowing drivers a chance to learn that they are on privately managed land and drive out again. This set up is just the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court identified would be unfair, in the Beavis case.

- further, despite UKGDPR updating the Data Protection Act in 2018 (seven years ago) and despite the ICO Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, this Claimant seems to think they can covertly film all people on foot, and all vehicles (including on the streets outside the site boundary) 24/7 without warning them, and charging "unauthorised" cars (driven by unsuspecting people who cross an unknown threshold, having passed no alerts that there are cameras and why) £100 a pop in one second flat. This is not only entrapment but the set up is illegal. Covert surveillance is illegal and the Claimant's own evidence shows there isn't even a (mandatory under both UKGDPR and the ICO's camera code principles) data warning notice.

- not only is there no data warning, there's not even the usual camera icon to alert anyone. The Claimant's own evidence proves there was no contract on offer and no camera surveillance alert.

----------------------------

I am sorry to hear your dad has his health to worry about. I do get it. I do understand (most of us will understand due to our own family medical traumas).

But:

- he can still do a WS to submit on Monday.

- he does not have to attend, as long as he excuses himself to the court in early January. 

This is easy enough to do. He has come this far, and even if he loses it should be reduced by £60 and the interest isn't automatic so that substantially reduces the claim.

And he might win.

He still has the Chan & Akande point too. 

He can decide in early January, whether to excuse himself from attending on health grounds, and let the judge decide the case on the WS and applicable law for surveillance cameras & data (which they've breached).

One last question:

He used the template defence. Did he admit to driving in para 2? Or only being the keeper?