• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

    Hello there, first post, first PCN at risk of going to court.

    I've just had papers served by Northampton for some parking what I did back on 6th November 2016. This was in Cardiff and the company managing the site is the one directed by a failed sex toy company director.

    I parked in a "car park" (a muddy, gravel filled field) to visit a friend in the block of flats opposite. I admit to clearly seeing the signage, but I thought would nip in and ask my friend (the tenant) if it was okay to park there (if the car park was actively being managed, tickets being issued, etc). If not, I would move the car.

    Another friend who had arrived before me stated confidently that because there were no bays, and the T&Cs referred to being parked in a bay, that it was "alright". I took him at his word and left the car parked there.

    When I went to check the car a few hours later, a PCN was stuck to the windscreen. I immediately checked all the signs and noted that there were 5 signs in total. They were not all the same, however. There were two groups of signs, differentiated by the exact wording of the T&Cs (a set of 3 and a set of 2). The set of 3 looked more worn and generally a little older than the set of 2. But from a distance, an average person would not be able to tell that these signs say different things, and would likely assume that they were all the same.

    I'll refer to the set of 3 as the "old signs" and the set of 2 as "new".
    Here is an "old" sign.
    http://imgur.com/a/wiBKV

    And here is a "new" sign (the one I suspect that Link actually intended to apply to the site) -

    http://imgur.com/a/6T3HQ


    Here is a ground view of the site. Not an "allocated bay" anywhere to be seen.

    http://imgur.com/a/YyyaW

    Here are some preliminary notes I've typed up for my defence which I'll need to send off soon:
    ----------------------------
    I submit that this claim by Link Parking be dismissed for the following reasons:
    Link Parking attempted to enforce a contract using signage that was faulty or contradictory.
    1. Two sets of terms and conditions, causing confusion.
    a. No indication of which particular T&Cs was intended to be in force.
    b. Signage of both sets of T&Cs look identical from a distance. I believe a reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that there are two T&Cs.
    2. One set of terms and conditions offering a pay and display provision for parking, when there was no such provision (machines, tickets, etc).
    a. No details on signage on how to acquire valid pay and display documentation
    3. The other set of terms and conditions insisting on two conditions being fulfilled to prevent a PCN being issued, namely "displaying a permit" AND being "parked in an allocated bay". At the time of writing, there are no "allocated bays"; the parking area is waste ground composed of gravel and mud.
    Regardless of which T&Cs are intended by the claimant to apply to the site, it is impossible for a driver of a vehicle parked at the site to comply with the listed terms and conditions and the contract is therefore unenforceable (should I put this line in???)
    Other possible points -
    · Parking company claiming on behalf of Horizon Properties? (Horizon do not appear on the signage).
    · Gladstone Solicitors failed to respond to my time limit of 14 days. (they were 3 weeks late).
    · Who is the landowner?
    · Letters feel like they've been written by a computer, and do not specifically refer to the points I made.
    · Email from horizon advising of deadline for assistance with parking tickets was sent after the deadline mentioned in email had actually passed. Clearly there was intended to be some kind of "grace period". I was ticketed before this time was up.
    · Can T&Cs be enforced when one part (allocated bays) doesn't exist? The signage specifically says "permit AND parked in a bay"... Can a contract be enforced with just one half of the conditions (on the signage) in place to be complied with?
    · Tenant and I discovered discarded signage in a rubbish pile about halfway down the alleyway. They were two "new" signs. Was it Horizon Staff who put the signs up?

    ---------------
    Here is my actual defence that I have typed up and ready to go in MCOL.


    The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly
    admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for
    the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. The claimant insists that an enforceable contract has been
    created due to signage at the site in question. The signage is
    confusing and contradictory, and therefore an enforceable contract
    does not and has not existed. The problems with this signage are
    detailed below.

    1.a - At the site in question, there are two sets of terms and
    conditions.

    1.a.1 - One set of signage (referred to henceforth as the new
    signs) insists on two conditions being fulfilled in order to forgo
    the charge of £100 for parking. Namely that a permit must be
    displayed, AND the vehicle must be parked in an allocated bay.

    I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
    clearly newer and cleaner, suggesting it has been put up well
    after the other set described below.

    1.a.2 - The other set of T&C signage (referred to henceforth as
    the old signs) insists on 1 of three conditions being fulfilled to
    avoid the same charge described in 1.a.1. The one condition of
    interest is:

    Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully displaying a valid
    pay-and-display ticket and parked fully within the confines of a
    marked bay.

    I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
    clearly older and dirtier, suggesting it has been put up well
    before the new set described above.

    1.b. - There is no indication whatsoever which set of terms and
    conditions is supposed to take precedence.

    1.c. - Signage of both sets of T&C signage look identical from a
    distance, even in clear weather and good lighting. I believe a
    reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that
    there are two T&Cs.

    2. The new T&C signage refers to the need for both conditions to
    be fulfilled to avoid a charge. This is impossible, as there are
    no marked allocated bays onsite. I am in possession of
    photographic evidence which shows that the parking area is
    comprised of mud and gravel, and is, as of 20/05/2017, undeveloped
    waste ground, with no paint or other markings to define where
    these alluded to bays are.

    3. The old T&C signage, specifically the section listed in 1.a.2,
    states the ability to pay and display a ticket. Thus inferring the
    existence of such a provision (i.e. ticket machines, payment
    devices, etc). There is no such provision of this and I am in
    possession of photographic evidence of this.

    3.a - There are no visible details on how or where to obtain a
    valid pay and display ticket.

    3.b - The same argument from 2. also applies, in that there are no
    bays onsite for any vehicle to park in (the requirement for which
    is stipulated in 1.a.2)

    I would also like to point out that the Claimant's solicitors,
    Gladstone Solicitors, have failed to abide by Practice Direction
    for Pre-Action Conduct (paras 13-16), by failing to respond to my
    letter sent in response to their Letter Before Claim within the
    deadline stipulated in my letter (14 days), taking just over 4
    weeks to arrive.

    With the above, I feel it is clear that the signage the Claimant
    attempted to use to enforce a contract is confusing and
    contradictory, and therefore enforces nothing. It is clear that
    the Claimant has failed in their responsibility to the public and
    the landowner to provide clear signage if they wish to impose such
    terms and conditions on members of the public. As such, I am not
    liable for any sum or amount claimed by the Claimant. I therefore
    request the court to strike out the claim as having no basis or
    likelihood of success.
    ---------------
    I hope you'll be able to give some advice. I've never been to court before, and they're asking for approx. £263 (160 for the fine, 50 for the solicitor's fees, and the remainder for the court costs).
    If you require any other documentation (like my appeal letter to Link and letter to Gladstones) please do not hesitate to request this. (I did not appeal to IAS after reading online how they are considered a kangaroo court and that a win for the parking company can strengthen the parking company's position.)

    I can also make a rough site map if anyone wants.


    Last edited by Vielwerth; 4th June 2017, 23:58:PM. Reason: Sanitised
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

    Defence sent via email to CCBC. Try as I might I really couldn't find any cases to cite about parking bays not existing or two sets of T&Cs. Hopefully I can expand on that in later stages.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

      [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] might be able to offer some pointers xx
      Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of.

      It doesn't matter where your journey begins, so long as you begin it...

      recte agens confido

      ~~~~~

      Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

      I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is Kati@legalbeagles.info
      But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

      Specialist advice can be sought via our sister site JustBeagle

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

        When was your defence submitted?
        Could you post up a sanitised copy of both the windscreen ticket & the Notice to keeper?
        Just going through the preliminaries, so if you know that the windscreen ticket & NTK are compliant, just say so rather than posting up details.
        CAVEAT LECTOR

        This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

        You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
        Cohen, Herb


        There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
        gets his brain a-going.
        Phelps, C. C.


        "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
        The last words of John Sedgwick

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

          Hi [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION], defence was submitted early hours of this morning. 33 days is up tomorrow.

          It was a windscreen ticket. I can't remember where I've put it. Chances are it'll be similar to any ticket submitted by Link from Overstone Court, another site in Cardiff that is managed by Link, which is, I'm aware, a bit notorious in the fightback(?) community. But I'll hunt around for it. I don't think I received a NTK, but i appealed before the initial 28 days were up (rejected by a computer obviously). Should I have received one?

          Thanks for taking an interest in my case.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

            You should have received postal notification within a 29-56 day window after the parking event.

            However, from what you say it would appear that either of the 2 contracts would have been impossible to perform. (No marked bays).
            That, I believe, falls under the heading of 'common mistake'. (Not 'frustration', as I've seen mentioned elsewhere on other fora).
            This could void any so-called contract.
            It still may be possible for a damages claim to be made or added to the existing claim, but I doubt they'd bother, as it would be nominal.
            CAVEAT LECTOR

            This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

            You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
            Cohen, Herb


            There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
            gets his brain a-going.
            Phelps, C. C.


            "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
            The last words of John Sedgwick

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

              Hello again.

              So, a directions questionnaire arrived a few days ago from Gladstones. It was as expected (asks for paper hearing, hearing to be in claimant's home court, etc).

              The notice of allocation at the back, however, is completely blank. I was under the impression that this page would have "stuff" on it, or a date by which I had to respond with my own directions questionnaire, or fill in that notice of allocation and send it back . Or am I supposed to wait for a copy of the same document to arrive from the court that is specifically for me?

              I don't know if MCOL will show if the court has received the Directions Questionnaire from Link, but just in case, the "last received document" listed is my defence.

              I have finally digitised and sanitised all documents (except the original windscreen PCN which I couldn't find) I have relating to this and you can find them here -

              https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw...FJVZUJLUnJHYTQ

              Specifically, this folder contains:
              1. Notice to Keeper (from Link)
              2. Letter Before Claim (from Gladstones)
              3. Response to Letter Before Claim (from me)
              4. Response to my response (from Gladstones)
              5. Claim Form (from the Court)
              6. Part 18 Request to Link (from me)
              7. My Defence (from me)
              8. Acknowledgement of Defence (from the Court)
              9. SAR (from the DVLA)
              10. Directions Questionnaire (from Gladstones).

              My defence is probably so amateur so to make some of the regulars here cry, but sadly I didn't realise until quite late how important a document it is (namely anything you don't mention here can't be brought up in the future). So it's largely copy and pasted arguments from other defences I've found that I felt were relevant. BMPA advised I stick to a mainly narrow defence regarding the signs, as Link Parking will find that difficult to explain (unless the "marked bays" are marked with invisible paint), so I have done so. But I would appreciate any advice on any hurdles I may have inadvertently created for myself with such a sloppy defence.

              Please feel free to have a browse and of course, any advice would be gleefully accepted!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

                Update, a notice of allocation to the small claims track has been received, dated the 16th of August. (I didn't get my hands on it until the 30th of August as I was abroad until then.). My deadline for getting my documents in is the 14th of September, and the hearing date has been confirmed for the 4th of October. The claimants paid the fee on the 24th of August, so I guess I'm going to court.


                Any help with drafting the witness statement/skeleton argument would be greatly appreciated.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Vielwerth View Post
                  Re: Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

                  Update, a notice of allocation to the small claims track has been received, dated the 16th of August. (I didn't get my hands on it until the 30th of August as I was abroad until then.). My deadline for getting my documents in is the 14th of September, and the hearing date has been confirmed for the 4th of October. The claimants paid the fee on the 24th of August, so I guess I'm going to court.


                  Any help with drafting the witness statement/skeleton argument would be greatly appreciated.
                  How did it go, any updates with this and any particular points regarding no markings?

                  Comment

                  View our Terms and Conditions

                  LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                  If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                  If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                  Working...
                  X