DCB LEGAL SPS Witness Stage

Milliered

Hi Coupon-mad

Thanks for replying, thats really useful.

Here is the NTK and the PoC.

Have also been to the car park today and took some photos of the entrance to show that there is no signs on entry.

Interestingly though, the entrance has been newly tarmaced to join up the car park and the main rd which gives the impression of a boundary line that the vehicle was stopped over. This had not been the case when the alleged contravention occurred.

The car was parked where the grass is so as not to block either pavement so therefore not in the car park in my opinion(although a dopey place to take the risk as was pointed out to me on here)!! The main sign in the car park was partially hidden by a transit van and as can be seen, no entry signs.

I am concerned that the tarmac line suggests the boundary and if they were to prove it with the Landowners agreement(which they have been asked to do so),this would prove their case. I am interested in what your thoughts would be on these images please? Of course, newly laid tarmac will show against older tarmac and it was just the case that it needed repairing, rather than mark a boundary.

I have had a couple of emails from them now to discuss an agreement and was starting to wonder if it would be worthwhile if you felt that my case isn't too strong.

Many thanks

Milliered

Just had a read of this sign which was in the car park and it states no parking on the access road. My only argument it would seem is to plead that these signs are in the middle and opposite end of the car park rather than the entrance at the very front of the access road. However at what point of the access road becomes the property of the landowner in your opinion?

Sorry to ask all this, just wondering if I have a decent chance or if it is weak?

Many thanks for your valued opinions as always

MrJenkinsEsq

Parking is permitted for: pre-authorised vehicles, vehicles displaying a valid permit.

• Pre-Authorisation is only done by landlord
• No parking allowed without their authorisation

Assuming this is the sign they're relying on it, very unambiguously imho, does not offer a contract to park for unauthorised persons. The drafter also seems to struggle with basic spelling and grammar.

The most egregious thing on the whole sign:

Can legal arguments be made at this stage? I think the defence touches the right points but not from the strongest angles.

Coupon-mad

"Can legal arguments be made at this stage?"

Yes. Ideally in a skeleton argument, separate from the WS and exhibits.

I suppose the WS could say (among other things) that the D believes the car was reversed into that position and there is no evidence that it passed a sign anyway.

MrJenkinsEsq

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82130585#Comment_82130585

Thanks I should be able to have a go at one later.

@Milliered where did the photos of the phone come from? Like this one:

James_Poisson

In my opinion it is pretty clear you were on their land, however that sign you parked under is also in my opinion one that is disallowed by the COP:

No "Parking Regulations" apply there may be terms and conditions but cannot be regulations; Regulations are legally enforceable rules set by government bodies or authorities not private parking companies. So you broke no regulations and what ever you did is not specified by that sign which does not appear to tell you where to look for further information.

It should also be reported to the BPA for misrepresentation of authority.

The other signs appear to refer to other areas in front of the garages and behind the wall boundary.

Having said all that if I lived there I would be pretty cheesed off with people rocking up at all hours parking all over the place when I was paying management fees for usage and maintenance of that area!

Milliered

Hi all

Thanks for the replies.

MrJenkinsEsq , I took them at the same time as the covert patrol attendant was taking his photos. That photo was taken on my own phone at the time of the alleged offence. The ones without my vehicle there was taken yesterday in the afternoon as I wanted to demonstrate how there was no entry signs.

James_Poisson,that sign is around a good 10 ft plus away from the position of the vehicle. Will add a photo to give an idea and at no point did the vehicle park past it within the car park.

I do however take your point about the people living there. Lesson learnt and have never parked there again. it isn't a much used car park at all,

On pg 1 of my thread is a fair few photos that I took at the time of the alleged infringement, these show clearly how far I was away from the sign on the wall .Would be very grateful if these could be looked at. My argument is that the boundary for enforcement doesn't seem very clear as it is a junction /access road to the actual car park.

Folks,i am really struggling with this to be honest. I defended a case that involved an airport and that turned out quite easy in the end as it relied on PoFA12. This one I have no idea how to even get started or if there is a strong case to defend.

I have received some emails asking me to negotiate and I know that is giving in but running out of time.I only have this weekend to get it sorted and sent as I need help from a relative to embed files and links etc and he is only available this weekend so need it drafted before then. I have read many WS including JackR1(he did already have the C WS to be fair) and just can't seem to find any that relate.

Please help, it is much appreciated

Milliered

These were taken on on my own phone at the time

Have had a look on Google and also and Law seems to state that the access road or mouth of the junction would not be classed as part of the car park.

Milliered

MrJenkinsEsq

Sorry.i misunderstood the question. I took a photo of my phone with my tablet which I was having to work with at the time

Milliered

Hi Coupon-mad

Did you get chance to have a look at the NTK AND PoC to see if they were valid?

Thank you