Tweet
Hello there, first post, first PCN at risk of going to court.
I've just had papers served by Northampton for some parking what I did back on 6th November 2016. This was in Cardiff and the company managing the site is the one directed by a failed sex toy company director.
I parked in a "car park" (a muddy, gravel filled field) to visit a friend in the block of flats opposite. I admit to clearly seeing the signage, but I thought would nip in and ask my friend (the tenant) if it was okay to park there (if the car park was actively being managed, tickets being issued, etc). If not, I would move the car.
Another friend who had arrived before me stated confidently that because there were no bays, and the T&Cs referred to being parked in a bay, that it was "alright". I took him at his word and left the car parked there.
When I went to check the car a few hours later, a PCN was stuck to the windscreen. I immediately checked all the signs and noted that there were 5 signs in total. They were not all the same, however. There were two groups of signs, differentiated by the exact wording of the T&Cs (a set of 3 and a set of 2). The set of 3 looked more worn and generally a little older than the set of 2. But from a distance, an average person would not be able to tell that these signs say different things, and would likely assume that they were all the same.
I'll refer to the set of 3 as the "old signs" and the set of 2 as "new".
Here is an "old" sign.
http://imgur.com/a/wiBKV
And here is a "new" sign (the one I suspect that Link actually intended to apply to the site) -
http://imgur.com/a/6T3HQ
Here is a ground view of the site. Not an "allocated bay" anywhere to be seen.
http://imgur.com/a/YyyaW
Here are some preliminary notes I've typed up for my defence which I'll need to send off soon:
----------------------------
I submit that this claim by Link Parking be dismissed for the following reasons:
Link Parking attempted to enforce a contract using signage that was faulty or contradictory.
1. Two sets of terms and conditions, causing confusion.
a. No indication of which particular T&Cs was intended to be in force.
b. Signage of both sets of T&Cs look identical from a distance. I believe a reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that there are two T&Cs.
2. One set of terms and conditions offering a pay and display provision for parking, when there was no such provision (machines, tickets, etc).
a. No details on signage on how to acquire valid pay and display documentation
3. The other set of terms and conditions insisting on two conditions being fulfilled to prevent a PCN being issued, namely "displaying a permit" AND being "parked in an allocated bay". At the time of writing, there are no "allocated bays"; the parking area is waste ground composed of gravel and mud.
Regardless of which T&Cs are intended by the claimant to apply to the site, it is impossible for a driver of a vehicle parked at the site to comply with the listed terms and conditions and the contract is therefore unenforceable (should I put this line in???)
Other possible points -
· Parking company claiming on behalf of Horizon Properties? (Horizon do not appear on the signage).
· Gladstone Solicitors failed to respond to my time limit of 14 days. (they were 3 weeks late).
· Who is the landowner?
· Letters feel like they've been written by a computer, and do not specifically refer to the points I made.
· Email from horizon advising of deadline for assistance with parking tickets was sent after the deadline mentioned in email had actually passed. Clearly there was intended to be some kind of "grace period". I was ticketed before this time was up.
· Can T&Cs be enforced when one part (allocated bays) doesn't exist? The signage specifically says "permit AND parked in a bay"... Can a contract be enforced with just one half of the conditions (on the signage) in place to be complied with?
· Tenant and I discovered discarded signage in a rubbish pile about halfway down the alleyway. They were two "new" signs. Was it Horizon Staff who put the signs up?
---------------
Here is my actual defence that I have typed up and ready to go in MCOL.
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly
admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for
the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. The claimant insists that an enforceable contract has been
created due to signage at the site in question. The signage is
confusing and contradictory, and therefore an enforceable contract
does not and has not existed. The problems with this signage are
detailed below.
1.a - At the site in question, there are two sets of terms and
conditions.
1.a.1 - One set of signage (referred to henceforth as the new
signs) insists on two conditions being fulfilled in order to forgo
the charge of £100 for parking. Namely that a permit must be
displayed, AND the vehicle must be parked in an allocated bay.
I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
clearly newer and cleaner, suggesting it has been put up well
after the other set described below.
1.a.2 - The other set of T&C signage (referred to henceforth as
the old signs) insists on 1 of three conditions being fulfilled to
avoid the same charge described in 1.a.1. The one condition of
interest is:
Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully displaying a valid
pay-and-display ticket and parked fully within the confines of a
marked bay.
I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
clearly older and dirtier, suggesting it has been put up well
before the new set described above.
1.b. - There is no indication whatsoever which set of terms and
conditions is supposed to take precedence.
1.c. - Signage of both sets of T&C signage look identical from a
distance, even in clear weather and good lighting. I believe a
reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that
there are two T&Cs.
2. The new T&C signage refers to the need for both conditions to
be fulfilled to avoid a charge. This is impossible, as there are
no marked allocated bays onsite. I am in possession of
photographic evidence which shows that the parking area is
comprised of mud and gravel, and is, as of 20/05/2017, undeveloped
waste ground, with no paint or other markings to define where
these alluded to bays are.
3. The old T&C signage, specifically the section listed in 1.a.2,
states the ability to pay and display a ticket. Thus inferring the
existence of such a provision (i.e. ticket machines, payment
devices, etc). There is no such provision of this and I am in
possession of photographic evidence of this.
3.a - There are no visible details on how or where to obtain a
valid pay and display ticket.
3.b - The same argument from 2. also applies, in that there are no
bays onsite for any vehicle to park in (the requirement for which
is stipulated in 1.a.2)
I would also like to point out that the Claimant's solicitors,
Gladstone Solicitors, have failed to abide by Practice Direction
for Pre-Action Conduct (paras 13-16), by failing to respond to my
letter sent in response to their Letter Before Claim within the
deadline stipulated in my letter (14 days), taking just over 4
weeks to arrive.
With the above, I feel it is clear that the signage the Claimant
attempted to use to enforce a contract is confusing and
contradictory, and therefore enforces nothing. It is clear that
the Claimant has failed in their responsibility to the public and
the landowner to provide clear signage if they wish to impose such
terms and conditions on members of the public. As such, I am not
liable for any sum or amount claimed by the Claimant. I therefore
request the court to strike out the claim as having no basis or
likelihood of success.
---------------
I hope you'll be able to give some advice. I've never been to court before, and they're asking for approx. £263 (160 for the fine, 50 for the solicitor's fees, and the remainder for the court costs).
If you require any other documentation (like my appeal letter to Link and letter to Gladstones) please do not hesitate to request this. (I did not appeal to IAS after reading online how they are considered a kangaroo court and that a win for the parking company can strengthen the parking company's position.)
I can also make a rough site map if anyone wants.
I've just had papers served by Northampton for some parking what I did back on 6th November 2016. This was in Cardiff and the company managing the site is the one directed by a failed sex toy company director.
I parked in a "car park" (a muddy, gravel filled field) to visit a friend in the block of flats opposite. I admit to clearly seeing the signage, but I thought would nip in and ask my friend (the tenant) if it was okay to park there (if the car park was actively being managed, tickets being issued, etc). If not, I would move the car.
Another friend who had arrived before me stated confidently that because there were no bays, and the T&Cs referred to being parked in a bay, that it was "alright". I took him at his word and left the car parked there.
When I went to check the car a few hours later, a PCN was stuck to the windscreen. I immediately checked all the signs and noted that there were 5 signs in total. They were not all the same, however. There were two groups of signs, differentiated by the exact wording of the T&Cs (a set of 3 and a set of 2). The set of 3 looked more worn and generally a little older than the set of 2. But from a distance, an average person would not be able to tell that these signs say different things, and would likely assume that they were all the same.
I'll refer to the set of 3 as the "old signs" and the set of 2 as "new".
Here is an "old" sign.
http://imgur.com/a/wiBKV
And here is a "new" sign (the one I suspect that Link actually intended to apply to the site) -
http://imgur.com/a/6T3HQ
Here is a ground view of the site. Not an "allocated bay" anywhere to be seen.
http://imgur.com/a/YyyaW
Here are some preliminary notes I've typed up for my defence which I'll need to send off soon:
----------------------------
I submit that this claim by Link Parking be dismissed for the following reasons:
Link Parking attempted to enforce a contract using signage that was faulty or contradictory.
1. Two sets of terms and conditions, causing confusion.
a. No indication of which particular T&Cs was intended to be in force.
b. Signage of both sets of T&Cs look identical from a distance. I believe a reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that there are two T&Cs.
2. One set of terms and conditions offering a pay and display provision for parking, when there was no such provision (machines, tickets, etc).
a. No details on signage on how to acquire valid pay and display documentation
3. The other set of terms and conditions insisting on two conditions being fulfilled to prevent a PCN being issued, namely "displaying a permit" AND being "parked in an allocated bay". At the time of writing, there are no "allocated bays"; the parking area is waste ground composed of gravel and mud.
Regardless of which T&Cs are intended by the claimant to apply to the site, it is impossible for a driver of a vehicle parked at the site to comply with the listed terms and conditions and the contract is therefore unenforceable (should I put this line in???)
Other possible points -
· Parking company claiming on behalf of Horizon Properties? (Horizon do not appear on the signage).
· Gladstone Solicitors failed to respond to my time limit of 14 days. (they were 3 weeks late).
· Who is the landowner?
· Letters feel like they've been written by a computer, and do not specifically refer to the points I made.
· Email from horizon advising of deadline for assistance with parking tickets was sent after the deadline mentioned in email had actually passed. Clearly there was intended to be some kind of "grace period". I was ticketed before this time was up.
· Can T&Cs be enforced when one part (allocated bays) doesn't exist? The signage specifically says "permit AND parked in a bay"... Can a contract be enforced with just one half of the conditions (on the signage) in place to be complied with?
· Tenant and I discovered discarded signage in a rubbish pile about halfway down the alleyway. They were two "new" signs. Was it Horizon Staff who put the signs up?
---------------
Here is my actual defence that I have typed up and ready to go in MCOL.
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly
admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for
the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. The claimant insists that an enforceable contract has been
created due to signage at the site in question. The signage is
confusing and contradictory, and therefore an enforceable contract
does not and has not existed. The problems with this signage are
detailed below.
1.a - At the site in question, there are two sets of terms and
conditions.
1.a.1 - One set of signage (referred to henceforth as the new
signs) insists on two conditions being fulfilled in order to forgo
the charge of £100 for parking. Namely that a permit must be
displayed, AND the vehicle must be parked in an allocated bay.
I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
clearly newer and cleaner, suggesting it has been put up well
after the other set described below.
1.a.2 - The other set of T&C signage (referred to henceforth as
the old signs) insists on 1 of three conditions being fulfilled to
avoid the same charge described in 1.a.1. The one condition of
interest is:
Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully displaying a valid
pay-and-display ticket and parked fully within the confines of a
marked bay.
I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
clearly older and dirtier, suggesting it has been put up well
before the new set described above.
1.b. - There is no indication whatsoever which set of terms and
conditions is supposed to take precedence.
1.c. - Signage of both sets of T&C signage look identical from a
distance, even in clear weather and good lighting. I believe a
reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that
there are two T&Cs.
2. The new T&C signage refers to the need for both conditions to
be fulfilled to avoid a charge. This is impossible, as there are
no marked allocated bays onsite. I am in possession of
photographic evidence which shows that the parking area is
comprised of mud and gravel, and is, as of 20/05/2017, undeveloped
waste ground, with no paint or other markings to define where
these alluded to bays are.
3. The old T&C signage, specifically the section listed in 1.a.2,
states the ability to pay and display a ticket. Thus inferring the
existence of such a provision (i.e. ticket machines, payment
devices, etc). There is no such provision of this and I am in
possession of photographic evidence of this.
3.a - There are no visible details on how or where to obtain a
valid pay and display ticket.
3.b - The same argument from 2. also applies, in that there are no
bays onsite for any vehicle to park in (the requirement for which
is stipulated in 1.a.2)
I would also like to point out that the Claimant's solicitors,
Gladstone Solicitors, have failed to abide by Practice Direction
for Pre-Action Conduct (paras 13-16), by failing to respond to my
letter sent in response to their Letter Before Claim within the
deadline stipulated in my letter (14 days), taking just over 4
weeks to arrive.
With the above, I feel it is clear that the signage the Claimant
attempted to use to enforce a contract is confusing and
contradictory, and therefore enforces nothing. It is clear that
the Claimant has failed in their responsibility to the public and
the landowner to provide clear signage if they wish to impose such
terms and conditions on members of the public. As such, I am not
liable for any sum or amount claimed by the Claimant. I therefore
request the court to strike out the claim as having no basis or
likelihood of success.
---------------
I hope you'll be able to give some advice. I've never been to court before, and they're asking for approx. £263 (160 for the fine, 50 for the solicitor's fees, and the remainder for the court costs).
If you require any other documentation (like my appeal letter to Link and letter to Gladstones) please do not hesitate to request this. (I did not appeal to IAS after reading online how they are considered a kangaroo court and that a win for the parking company can strengthen the parking company's position.)
I can also make a rough site map if anyone wants.
Comment