Lost in court

yarpsnehpets

If they only took you for £100 then you can be very sure that it cost PE more than that to get it too this stage - moral victory in that respect.

Well done for standing up to them.

Very questionable behaviour by parking operators in situations where you are a legitimate consumer at the business which they are monitoring - this has been getting some air-time in the press recently.

MrJenkinsEsq

Did the judge say anything about the test he was applying, or was it all about the facts, which signs were where and so on?

tidydriver

Holiday Inn in Solihull (Birmingham Airport)

tidydriver

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82136161#Comment_82136161

Nothing of that detail. He said there were signs facing in different directions in the car park so he was satisfied that I would have seen them when driving around the car park. And then I should have got out and walked around to seek out the terms and conditions. I had established previously that the claimant has no idea where I drove in the car park. As I say it was a big car park. And when I walked to the hotel there were no signs on the way- which I'd proved

Coupon-mad

"The judge accepted my arguments that the entrance sign was facing the wrong way, the key sign that would have brought the terms to my attention was missing (it was on the site plan), therefore I could not see a sign when I parked."

Well if he said that, then you should have won. Vine v Waltham Forest applies. Consumer Rights Act applies. Signs must be 'bound to be seen' and people don't have to go out of their way looking for terms or seeking out hidden signs.

The signs and the VRM screen both have to be conspicuous.

Please show the VRM screen photos. Is it just on a desk in the hotel or did PEye not even evidence the screen?

tidydriver

@Coupon-mad They didn't use the VRM screen in evidence. My evidence included Vine and Consumer Rights Act but judge seemed to ignore all precedence and just decide that I must have seen signs as I was driving around looking for a space in a busy car park. I had said that my focus was on safety- other cars/ pedestrians and looking for spaces rather than sign spotting (as well as the fact that case law backs it up). He even accepted that the only wording I would have seen would have been 'Hotel Patron Only' which I was. He just expected me to look for signs that I may have driven past to find the terms

Half_way

do you have a link to the hotels booking page?

what does that say about parking?

tidydriver

@Half_way I didn't book a room. I was visiting the hotel

Smartun

That's county court judges for you. A rock solid case with plenty of carefully collated documents and photos doesn't guarantee a thing.

I've lost a case where client specifications from an ISO accredited company were wrong. Following the specifications on the expectation that the client would be responsible for their own failures turned out to be a bad idea. The judge decided that I could have used my professional expertise to telepathically ascertain that the engineering drawings presented to me were in fact merely "indicative" not the production Blueprints they purported to be.

Whenever possible do NOT go to court. It will stress you out beyond belief and you will in all probability get shafted leaving court in shell shocked disbelief.

Coupon-mad

"He even accepted that the only wording I would have seen would have been 'Hotel Patron Only' "

So you should have won on that basis, due to Vine v Waltham Forest.

"They didn't use the VRM screen in evidence. "

So how did he conclude that there was such a screen visible, working and fairly drawn to patrons' attention inside the hotel?