Defence due against VCS PCN

[CarKeeper]

Hello

At the very last minute it's been decided to defend a PCN issued from Vehicle Control Services.
The PCN was issued after a very poor quality 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE' was left on the windscreen on 26th December 18.
NTK received 2/1/19 £100 charge
Final Demand received 31/1/19
Demand For Payment received 18/2/19 charge increased to £160
Final Demand received 5/3/19
Court papers issued 10/5/19

Alleged contravention is - Parked In A Restricted/Prohibited Area
The location has been described as a Car Park when in fact it is a Service Area. There are no bays, no pay & display machines.
The land can entered at any point across its width without passing a single sign. There are 2 signs on a back wall & 1 to one side.
Is inadequate signage the best line of defence?

Deadline for defence issued via MCOL is tomorrow 12/06/19
Does this need to be a brief outline of the defence or more formally written?

Any help & guidance greatly appreciated

Many thanks

[charitynjw]

Hi & welcome to LB.

Blimey......no pressure then, lol!
I take it you've acknowledged?
Could you post up pics of the original postal notice to keeper, front & rear.
Redact personal info, but leave all times & dates visible.
Plus pics of site signage.

& yep, 12th June deadline for filing a defence.

Btw, have you been in contact with the parking co at all, or appealed, & if so have you ID'd who was driving/parking at the time?

[CarKeeper]

Hi & thank you!

Yes acknowledgment was sent.
I have not been in contact with the parking co or appealed no. Nor did l log onto the website I was asked to on the very dodgy looking windscreen sticker.
I should be able to post pics up around dinner time today.

Thanks for your assistance.

[charitynjw]

Yes, that dodgy-looking windscreen ticket is usually just to lure the unwary (or unlucky) into revealing the driver's ID.

[CarKeeper]

Pics....

[CarKeeper]

Pics...

[CarKeeper]

Sign...

[ostell]

Prohibiting signs. They are not offering a contract to park to non delivery people and to say there was when it was specifically forbidden is perverse. Without a contract there can be no breach.

A defence along those lines has been successful recently on pepipoo.

I'm not on my usual computer to copy some relevant text about prohibiting signs in but you will find it against my name in other threads

[CarKeeper]

Ok thanks. I’ll take a look.

Has a contract not been entered ‘by entering this private land’ as the sign states?

[ostell]

The sign specifically says "No Parking" so how can they then claim they have created a contract for parking? The only claimant would be the landholders and then only for nominal trespass.

[CarKeeper]

Hi OSTELL& thank you for your assistance.

Would this be the relevant text you mentioned by any chance?

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.

[charitynjw]

That would certainly be relevant to your argument re forbidding signage & penalty payments. (As opposed to a claim for breach of alleged contract.)
You can download transcripts of the Bull & the Masterton cases here.
Bear in mind that they are county court cases, so do not create a precedent. They can be used as persuasive decisions, though.
A report & discussion on the Horizon/Mr J case can be found here.
It is worth reading them to get a good feel for the 'ratio'. (Judges reasons for the decisions.)

[charitynjw]

Moving on to the NtK, in my opinion it fails re the 'period of parking' issue.

9
(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...dule/4/enacted

There is some vague statement (on the NtK) to 'the period immediately preceeding......' etc, but to my mind that doesn't really apply to the statement on the sign re T&Cs applicable 24hrs a day.
So if it were me I'd make a brief mention of the NtK's non compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4, section 9(2)(a).

[CarKeeper]

Thanks CHARITYNJW

I have took a quick look at the transcripts (I should be at work really! I will read them properly later)

So in basic terms the T&C on the sign are offering a contract to service vehicles that may require a permit. The vehicle is not a service vehicle requiring a permit so the T&C do not apply, no contract can be entered into hence no breach can happen.

Have I understood that correctly?

So the NTK fails as it only mentions a single moment in time, not a period of length?

I presume I should also mention the lack of clear signage? I don't know how long they've been there but they never used to be. The area in question is roughly square in shape with 2 signs on the back wall, and 1 on the rear half of a side wall. You approach the area at 90 degrees, so parallel to the back wall and then can either just pull in off the access road or reverse park into the front section - in which case you would never of had a sign in front of you at all. You can do this across the entire width, there is no defined entrance or exit.
Also I don't think they are illuminated, bearing in mind this was approaching 4pm on a gloomy late December evening!

[charitynjw]

Thanks CHARITYNJW
I have took a quick look at the transcripts (I should be at work really! I will read them properly later)
So in basic terms the T&C on the sign are offering a contract to service vehicles that may require a permit. The vehicle is not a service vehicle requiring a permit so the T&C do not apply, no contract can be entered into hence no breach can happen.
Have I understood that correctly?
Imho that's correct.
But it's a judge's opinion that counts....though you have the transcripts as reference, & the judge should take note of his/her colleagues' findings.
So the NTK fails as it only mentions a single moment in time, not a period of length?
Again correct.....a period of time is mandatory for the purposes of PoFA 2012.
I presume I should also mention the lack of clear signage? I don't know how long they've been there but they never used to be. The area in question is roughly square in shape with 2 signs on the back wall, and 1 on the rear half of a side wall. You approach the area at 90 degrees, so parallel to the back wall and then can either just pull in off the access road or reverse park into the front section - in which case you would never of had a sign in front of you at all. You can do this across the entire width, there is no defined entrance or exit.
Also I don't think they are illuminated, bearing in mind this was approaching 4pm on a gloomy late December evening!
See below.

IPC Code of Practice.
Signs.....Contrast & illumination (Schedule 1, Page 23)
Also, info re entrance signs.