CPM Parking in work carpark space forgetting to display permit

Hi Loadsofchildren123,

Thanks for all your help. I think the contract is a valid argument here. I'm not sure the rest will be.

I still work at the company so would LBC be a wise move?

I need to check the contract I signed with my employer when I became a permanent employee, this was when I was given my permit for parking. I have got a copy of two letters, one with the permit on, and a letter from 'UK car park management' addressed to "Tenant/Occupier" and "Manager"

The Letter with the permit (addressed to Tenant/Occupier) is just a letter the permit comes on. It does say all vehicles must display a permit corresponding to the bay number.

The following arguements I think I can use:

1. The Defendant admits that he was the driver of a xxxxx, registration number xxxx on the relevant date.!

2.!The Defendant denies that he is liable for the entirety of the Claim for the reasons set out below.

3.!No contract was entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant.!

4.!The Defendant did enter into a contract for parking, but it was with his employer and not the Claimant, as follows:
4.1 On xxxx the Claimant entered into an agreement with his employer xxxxx (“x”) by which x granted him the right to park in its staff car park as part of the conditions of his contract (“the Agreement”);
4.2!The terms of the Agreement were set out in a written document which the Defendant signed on the same date (“the Contract”) [TO BE CHECKED]

6.!The Defendant did not enter into any contract with the Claimant in relation to the exercise of her rights to park under the Agreement and the Contract, or in relation to any other matter, and the Claimant therefore has no cause of action against the Defendant.

7.!The Defendant cannot have entered into any contract with the Claimant, because the Claimant cannot have made any offer of parking to him – he already had the right to park by virtue of the Agreement and Contract with x. To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, the Defendant did not accept it. Furthermore, no consideration flowed between the Claimant and Defendant (the Defendant already having the parking rights, for which he had agreed to)

!8.!The Defendant admits that he was given a piece of paper containing the Claimant’s “terms and conditions” for the use of x’s staff car park, along with a permit (the “car-parking card” referred to in the Contract) and a permit disc holder. This was given to him by a member of x's Facilities Department after he had entered into the Agreement with x and signed the Contract. When he was given the Claimant’s terms and conditions, the Defendant had already acquired the right to park in the staff car park, subject only to the terms set out in the Contract. Therefore, the terms and conditions cannot have formed part of that Agreement/Contract. Neither can the Defendant have entered into any further contract with the Claimant because there was no offer made, no acceptance of any offer and no consideration flowed between the Claimant and the Defendant. The terms and conditions did not therefore bind the Defendant.

10.!It is admitted that the car park contained a sign or signs which the Defendant recalls stated that it was to be used only by permit-holders/authorized users and a warning that unauthorized users would be charged £100. It is denied that such signage made any offer to the Defendant, because its wording forbade parking for those not displaying a permit, rather than offering it, and those who had permits were already authorized by x to park there. In the alternative, the signage did not make an offer which was capable of acceptance because it was cluttered, in small lettering (particularly the reference to the £100 charge) and the terms of any offer were unclear. The Claimant’s intention was not to make a genuine offer, the main purpose of the wording was to deter unauthorized parking by attempting to impose a penalty upon those who did not have a permit.![I THINK?]

11.!To the extent that the signage made an offer, the Defendant did not accept it because he was already entitled to park in the car park, and he took the warning in the signage to apply only to unauthorized users – it was clear to him that the sign was intended as a deterrent.

12.!It is denied that the Defendant was obliged by the Agreement or the Contract, nor by any contract with the Claimant, to display the permit in the manner prescribed in the Claimant’s terms and conditions, or its signage, or at all. Nor was the Defendant obliged to pay a charge for failing to display the permit (either to x or to the Claimant or any other entity). At no time did the Defendant accept the Claimant’s terms and conditions or any offer made by the signage and, as stated above.

13.!To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, the Defendant did not accept it by parking, and no consideration flowed, because he was already entitled to park in the staff car park.



15.!In the alternative, should it be determined that the Defendant did enter into a contract with the Claimant, the terms of which were set out in the Claimant’s terms and conditions, the Defendant denies that she breached its terms because she displayed the permit at all times and used reasonable endeavours to do so in the manner required by the Claimant’s terms and conditions (namely by using the permit disc holder). It was the Claimant which made it impossible for the Defendant to fully comply with those obligations because the permit disc holder it had supplied was not fit for purpose, therefore frustrating any contract (or this element of it). It must have been an implied term of any such contract that the permit disc holder, which the Defendant was required to use to display her permit, was fit for purpose and that the Defendant could rely on it to remain stuck to the windscreen when she was away from the vehicle. Alternatively, the court has the power to impute such a term to the contract in order to give it efficacy. The Claimant breached this implied term by providing a permit disc holder which came away from the windscreen, with no prior warning, when the car was parked and the Defendant was not in it. On the date in question, the Defendant left her vehicle parked with the permit disc holder affixed to the left hand side of the windscreen (with the permit in it). However, at some time after she had left the vehicle, the permit disc holder fell off the windscreen and landed on the dashboard, where it remained until she returned to the car at the end of the working day. Throughout the period of parking, the permit was, however, clearly visible through the windscreen because it could be seen in the permit disc holder lying face up on the dashboard. It would have been visible to the attendant who issued the parking charge notice.

16.!In the alternative, should it be determined that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant and that she did breach its terms, the Claimant’s terms and conditions failed to define what the amount of any “parking charge” would be, and this term must therefore be void for uncertainty. It is accepted that a “parking charge” of £100 was identified on the signage in the car park. However, the signage cannot have formed part of any contract which may have been created between the Claimant and the Defendant by the terms and conditions. The terms of the contract have to be clear at the time the contract is made. Terms cannot be added later, other than by way of a collateral or new contract – both contracts require an offer, acceptance and consideration. If a contract was formed, then it was formed when the terms and conditions and the permit were given to the Defendant, and not later when she started to use the car park and read the signs.!

17.!Should it be determined that the Claimant’s signage was capable of making an offer, such offer was not accepted by the Defendant, and there can have been no consideration, because she had already been granted parking rights in the staff car park by x (for which she was paying £x per calendar month) and the Claimant was already obliged to provide car parking spaces pursuant to its contract with x.

19.!The Defendant believes that the Claimant has already been remunerated for providing and managing the spaces in the x staff car park, and that the £100 charge (to which unspecified charges of £143.32 have been inexplicably added) is an unrecoverable penalty which is unenforceable and is an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claim is distinguished from the facts in the case of!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. In that case, it was agreed that there was a contract between the driver and the Claimant, formed by prominent signage at the entrance to a car park which made a clear offer. The case turned on a unique set of facts regarding the location and interest of the landowner. Strict compliance with the Claimant’s Code of Practice was paramount. The site was a retail park and there was a free parking licence offered. There was a “legitimate interest” in the contract/parking charges being enforced so that visitors did not overstay the two hour free period in the retail park so as to ensure a turnover of visitors to the retail units, and a complex contractual arrangement by which the Claimant was not paid by the landowner and therefore had to make an income out of the management of the car parking. All of this together disengaged the “penalty rule”. None of those facts apply in this case - the charges claimed are quite clearly a penalty and are not recoverable. In addition, the Claimant’s compliance with its binding ATA AOS Code of Practice was deemed to be paramount in the!Beavis!case, whereas in this case the Claimant has breached its Code of Practice in several important respects. Compliance with the Code of Practice is a mandatory term and a condition of membership.!

20.!The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of all aspects of its claim, including:
20.1!Its contractual right, granted by the landowner or lawful occupier of the land, to manage the car park where the Defendant was parked on the relevant date, to issue charges to vehicles and to pursue court proceedings in respect of such charges;
20.2!The creation of a contract with the Defendant by either the terms and conditions or by the Claimant’s signage or by any other means;
20.3!The manner in which the Defendant has breached such contract;
20.4 The loss suffered by the Claimant as a result of any breach(es);
20.8!The Defendant also challenges the addition of [£xxx] in “contractual costs” and the interest of [£xxx]. The Claimant is put to full proof of the contractual term entitling it to add charges of [£xxx] to the sum claimed. In respect of the interest claimed, the court should not exercise its discretion to award interest where the Claimant has delayed by four years in bringing these proceedings.
[Not sure how to word this with the fees they are asking for. Not sure how £100 becomes £160.!

Is there anything else I can add?
How well does this stand up?
If when I find my permanent contract it does not have any mention of the parking space, how much does my argument fall down?

Thanks for the help!

I am told they pay the building owners for office and parking spaces. Building owners pay pcm.
Signed nothing seperate to my main contract and no mention of parking in there.
There had been talks on office about talking to car parking company about tickets as a lot of the office have had tickets. I think that dried up a bit though.
Should I go to HR or the person who deals with the site? Or maybe to the site owners directly?