Court Claim Form - PCN 43secs of evidence

[PJHustle]

I have done a search and browsed threads but not found anything with a similar claim.

4/5 years ago UK Parking Control issued a PCN on my partners Vehicle for parking without a permit. Time has passed so I do not completely remember the case but I never left anything unsettled. I can only assume that I had appealed this through their web portal at the time and because I didn't get any further letters I assumed the matter settled. 2021 comes I see lots of people have been targeted with old debts and them trying to claim and this is where I am.

I have a court claim form of which I will be responding shortly completing the Acknowledgement of service section and then preparing my defence. Am I correct in thinking that 42 secs of images are not a sufficient amount of time to allow my partner the opportunity to read the signs for the terms of the parking in the area?

She was looking to open up a store and went to enquire at the store front (parking was at the rear) about rates etc and had a viewing for the property, since then the managing agents have changed and are not able to step in to assist in this matter either. I would be willing to and am going to be prepared to go to court and maybe even counter claim for loss of earnings on 2 days (preparation for court and the actual court day plus travel expense to get there).

Am I missing anything here and or is the counterclaim amount going to be reasonable in a court?

Any and all help here would be greatly appreciated

12:56:43 is the time stamp on the first image
12:57:25 is the time stamp on the last image of my car
12:57:37 is the very last image (a sign on a wall)
(Obtained via a SARS request)

Total Court Claim Amount = £313.44

[PJHustle]

Here are the attachments I forgot :P

[ostell]

That is a a forbidding sign, they are not offering a contract to park fo Unauthorised vehicles. With no contract there can be no breach and therefore no charge. What they are trying to issue is a penalty, which is not allowed. The proper claimant is the landowner for trespass.

here's some text I have about permit holder only signs. The principle is the same

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

for the excessive amount look up Excel v wilkinson

The driver is permitted time to read the signs to decide if they will accept the contract

[PJHustle]

I am so thankful for your response I hadn't even considered the context of the signage. Your fast and speedy help in this matter has given me a relief of stress before Christmas