Tweet
Hi, Please could anyone tell me what points to include in Defence to Particulars, when there:
1) is one parking sign (inadequate by itself anyway & mostly illegible to driver) at a multi-car park entrance and the sign:
a] has the name of a private parking operator on it
b] refers (on closer inspection later) to 'e-permit holders only' but also states, "If you fail to comply with the contractual Terms .etc you agree to pay etc.. £100"
c] has another bit that states, "Refer to Terms..etc .located in Car Park"
2) is one very small (about 8 inches high so not noticeable and not readable unless you are stood next to it) sign actually in the relevant car park (about 2½ acres) which states, "Permit Holders Only, Strictly No Unauthorised Parking. XX Business Park Management reserve the right to request the removal of any vehicle in breach of these conditions"
3) are no visible signs in the car park itself containing anything about the "Terms and Conditions" referred to by the parking operator's one entrance sign
Also, am i right in thinking that the entrance sign placed there by the parking operator is not forbidding if it contains some baloney about "contractual Terms and Conditions" but the tiny sign inside the car park (clearly an original sign put there by the site property management before the parking operator came along) IS forbidding?
I'm just a bit puzzled as to how best to word the defence when it is about both contractual and forbidding signs.
Incidentally, the driver (who unwittingly admitted being driver) did not receive the PCN-NTK until months after the alleged contravention by which time the parking operator had installed extra signage. However, they forgot to take down the old 8 inch sign, so it is still there. I'm sure if they see this they will bob along and remove it but it is too late - have already got digitally stamped photos to prove the old sign. They will be lying if they try to deny the old one was there.
Many thanks for any assistance.
NB
There were multiple car parks within one from the same entrance and driver thought she was in one of the 2 hours-free areas (she was there for just over one hour).
There were no wardens or payment facilities etc, just entry/exit times via APNR
Property management firm is not interested, landowner has not responded to request for cancellation, parking operator failed to respond to either SAR or request for more info, MP couldn't give a monkeys.
1) is one parking sign (inadequate by itself anyway & mostly illegible to driver) at a multi-car park entrance and the sign:
a] has the name of a private parking operator on it
b] refers (on closer inspection later) to 'e-permit holders only' but also states, "If you fail to comply with the contractual Terms .etc you agree to pay etc.. £100"
c] has another bit that states, "Refer to Terms..etc .located in Car Park"
2) is one very small (about 8 inches high so not noticeable and not readable unless you are stood next to it) sign actually in the relevant car park (about 2½ acres) which states, "Permit Holders Only, Strictly No Unauthorised Parking. XX Business Park Management reserve the right to request the removal of any vehicle in breach of these conditions"
3) are no visible signs in the car park itself containing anything about the "Terms and Conditions" referred to by the parking operator's one entrance sign
Also, am i right in thinking that the entrance sign placed there by the parking operator is not forbidding if it contains some baloney about "contractual Terms and Conditions" but the tiny sign inside the car park (clearly an original sign put there by the site property management before the parking operator came along) IS forbidding?
I'm just a bit puzzled as to how best to word the defence when it is about both contractual and forbidding signs.
Incidentally, the driver (who unwittingly admitted being driver) did not receive the PCN-NTK until months after the alleged contravention by which time the parking operator had installed extra signage. However, they forgot to take down the old 8 inch sign, so it is still there. I'm sure if they see this they will bob along and remove it but it is too late - have already got digitally stamped photos to prove the old sign. They will be lying if they try to deny the old one was there.
Many thanks for any assistance.
NB
There were multiple car parks within one from the same entrance and driver thought she was in one of the 2 hours-free areas (she was there for just over one hour).
There were no wardens or payment facilities etc, just entry/exit times via APNR
Property management firm is not interested, landowner has not responded to request for cancellation, parking operator failed to respond to either SAR or request for more info, MP couldn't give a monkeys.
