PCNs and contract law

[Trainerman]

Hello. This is an unusual case. It actually concerns a piece of land that was the subject of my earlier question about easements. Local residents have parked on this plot, and we have proof of over 40 years in the case of two houses. Easements have been applied for. However, in the mean time the owners have instructed a private parking company, and residents have PCNs to a shared total of some £800. The usual waste of time took place with Popla and we are now at the debt collector letters stage. We have actually written the PPC and told them that they will have to take us to court.

Before even one ticket was written, I wrote to both the parking company and the BPA telling them of our case and specifically saying that we did not accept a contract and rebutted any suggestion that we need one. This email had an attachment of a signed statement by residents to the effect that we did not consent to forming a contract, and that if they wanted to put this before any authority, they would have to use the tort of trespass. The PCNs written since then rely, of course, on the signs creating a contract. I would like guidance therefore on whether our refusing a contract is a strong point in court. My understanding is that a contract has an offer, a consideration and an acceptance. If one states in writing that it is rejected, how can there be any contract and any liability? Thanks people

[echat11]

ostell and des8 Can you please take a look, many thanks.

[des8]

Can you post up a photo of the signs please

For a contract to be enforceable there has to e an intention by both parties to form a contract.
Pre advice that an action should not be construed as an intention might e arguable, and I'll have a look around to see if there is any case law

[Trainerman]

Not a brilliant photo, apologies. It does say "driver accepts contractual terms" but they would say that. I hope that I am right that denying contract before any one parked is more powerful than a sign. I also think that these would be an example of forbidding signage, I see no way to make a contract with it anyway.

Your help and advice is very much appreciated, thank you

[des8]

very unclear photo but i could just read that parking is only permitted for preauthorised vehicles, so any other vehicle may not park there.
It is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden

so not only did you not have any intention form a contract, that sign is not capable of implying a contract

Checking with ostell

[Trainerman]

I hope this one is better. Thanks everyone

[Ukmicky]

The problem you have got is no easement has yet been gained . If you fail to pay the company will need to take you to court. Don’t ignore the letter. Turn up with evidence of the claim and ask the court to adjourn the case until, the land registry has dealt with the prescriptive easement claim . The tickets will need to be against someone who has the right to benefit from the easement . The court can turn down the request.

[ostell]

Forbidding signage, they are offering parking contract for pre authorised vehicles only. They can't then claim that a contract existed with un pre authorised vehicles as that is specifically forbidden and to claim that a contract existed is perverse. The only claimant would be the landowner but only for trespass

[Trainerman]

The problem you have got is no easement has yet been gained . If you fail to pay the company will need to take you to court. Don’t ignore the letter. Turn up with evidence of the claim and ask the court to adjourn the case until, the land registry has dealt with the prescriptive easement claim . The tickets will need to be against someone who has the right to benefit from the easement . The court can turn down the request.

Yes, thank you. I should have made clear that we actually want to go to court and have told the PPC that. We applied for one easement in June, but apparently the Land Registry is snowed under. Hence, my question on this thread as whether our denial of contract at the very start would help us, particularly if we are still waiting for the easement.
As always, thanks, I really appreciate the help

[Trainerman]

Can you post up a photo of the signs please

For a contract to be enforceable there has to e an intention by both parties to form a contract.
Pre advice that an action should not be construed as an intention might e arguable, and I'll have a look around to see if there is any case law

Thank you very much. I did have a look for case law (Parking Prankster etc) but did not find much. If you find something then I would be extra grateful. Thank you

[Ukmicky]

Forbidding signage, they are offering parking contract for pre authorised vehicles only. They can't then claim that a contract existed with un pre authorised vehicles as that is specifically forbidden and to claim that a contract existed is perverse. The only claimant would be the landowner but only for trespass

I agree it is defiantly a good point of argument as they can’t have it both ways. The only issue however is the lower courts don’t always have a good understanding of the law like the higher courts do. A flash lawyer for the claimant may pursued a court to rule in his favour. If I were to defend myself in court based on that argument I would gather as much case law on the subject and look for cases that have been won based exactly on the wording of the signage the OP has posted.

[ostell]

Sorry here's the full text that I had saved. A bit more info

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.

[Trainerman]

Thank you, I have found and bookmarked those cases Ostell. Interesting, one has a sign with very similar wording.

[Trainerman]

I am adding to this rather than start a new thread, but if this is wrong do let me know.

The PCNs we got from this disputed use of land are now going to court. Now, we had a letter before claim which was dated 12th January and arrived on 15th FEB. The very day after, we received the actual County Court Claim, in itself dated 14th of Feb.

If the usual accepted standard is that a letter arrives two working days after posting, then by the same logic the LBC was posted on about the same day that the Court action was started. This of course robs us of our basic rights to research and get advice.

Being from a scam industry, I suspect that it is not accidental. I will as a matter of course complain to SRA but is there anything practical that I can do to make these people reset the clock and correct what is obviously their mistake.

Thanks everybody

[MIKE770]

ostell probably pop in here for you