Tweet
Hi
I would use basically what went before, but for Popla stress that in court case 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014) it was ruled that ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions.
(assuming that sign age did only require payment for time parked and not time stayed in park).
Good luck
PS link to case judgment: Microsoft Word - DCA APPROVED NHOTCHIN, 3JD08399, PARKING EYE, HOTCHIN, 17.03.14 (wsimg.com)
I would use basically what went before, but for Popla stress that in court case 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014) it was ruled that ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions.
(assuming that sign age did only require payment for time parked and not time stayed in park).
Good luck
PS link to case judgment: Microsoft Word - DCA APPROVED NHOTCHIN, 3JD08399, PARKING EYE, HOTCHIN, 17.03.14 (wsimg.com)
Comment