Fine after 30seconds

Just to reiterate what everyone else said:


1. Ignore prosaver, he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Sorry prosaver, not meaning to offend, but seriously your advice is so wrong I am wanting to cry and laugh at the same time. First, the charge is for the TOC to levy, not a PPC, second the correct process is magistrates breach of byelaw proceedings not civil breach of contract proceedings and third the OP quite clearly did not "park" and has no liability whatsoever to pay the charge.


2. You defend on the basis of the byelaws and that this is not a claim to be brought by the PPC but by the TOC and the correct procedure is for such proceedings to be pursued in the magistrates court, not the county court.


3. I would add to any defence that, in any event, no contract with the PPC can have been formed by you as driver. for there to be a contract there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. The sign is what the PPC asserts is the "offer". Setting aside any arguments over whether the wording and positioning of the sign made it capable of making any offer, you say that you read the "offer" and decided not to accept it, so you got back into your car (engine still running and door left open) and drove away. You didn't "accept" the "offer" because you chose not to park and left. Rather disingenuously of the PPC there are photos of you stopping and getting out of your car and walking towards the sign, but none of you reading the sign and then returning to the car and driving away - all within a matter of seconds. If this goes ahead, insist on the parking operative giving evidence and attending court because this is a crucial issue and you want to cross examine him.


4. The Claimant will rely on the sign making an offer of parking. You didn't "park" in the ordinary meaning of that word. You saw a sign, so you stopped and got out to read it, leaving your door open and your engine running. You then returned to the car and drove away, all in a space of about 30 seconds. There was a recent case where the DJ defined "parking" and said that it did not including stopping temporarily - eg to unload. Stopping for a matter of seconds, for the purpose of reading signage (particularly where it is claimed such signage makes an offer to park) is clearly not "parking". The case is Jopson v Home Guard. We debated the issue of what constitutes "parking" on this thread which links to case law, dictionary definitions and other relevant threads: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72444632#post72444632


This is completely absurd and if you make a bit of a fuss now I'd expect them to slink away and leave you alone (after the usual stupid chasing letters).


If the matter proceeds, you must ask them to produce any other photographs that their operative took after these 3 that you have shown.
If they say there aren't any, then say that you would like the name and address of the parking operative because he is an important witness and you would like to speak to him. The law about witnesses is that "there is no property in a witness" - this means that nobody "owns" what a witness saw - so a Defendant is equally entitled to speak to a witness employed by the Claimant as the Claimant is. They will of course say that they will not give out his details - you then say that you will expect them to produce a statement from him and to make him available for cross examination, should they proceed against you. If they then don't, you invite an adverse inference and you make a fuss that in spite of there being no property in a witness, they refused you access to him as the most important witness in the case.