Tweet
OK, so the driver of my car, saw the sign next to where my car was parked, and thought that with a lack of location number or name of site manager coupled with how poorly written it came across they just thought "well anyone could put that anywhere, it doesn't look very genuin" also it was highly unlikely to be an issue to park where they were at 7pm on a sunday evening and wouldn't be there long. There was a windscreen ticket upon return.
I initially sort advice citing the lack of location number and was told that is not required (although I would contened that it's misleading as it looks like something that would be needed) but there was something wrong with the sign, in that it is forbidding and attempts to state what it does not allow then offer terms for doing it. Good point I thought, someone else pointed out to me "that text in the black box the words "otherwise than in accordance with the above" are meaningless, as there are no terms written above which deal with parking (all the terms are set out below)"
Anyway I refused to pay, I did respond to the NTK refusing to name the driver and the letter before court, I was instructed to not go all in bringing up the forbidding signage at that point but save that for the initial court defence, but hint at there being something wrong with the sign, I'm starting to think this was a mistake now, so the court papers came through 2 weeks ago (I have told the court already I wish to defend the claim).
I'm a bit concerned now, I have been in touch with someone who was helping me write a defence and she thinks the proximity of the sign to my car (right next to it) makes a difference and is now suggesting "try and negotiate a fee with them rather than fight in court".
Now, I thought that sign was more obviously forbidding than others I've seen, she seems to think it's not a forbidding sign.
To me, it still seems to be a sign that states what you're not allowed to do then lays out terms for doing it. I've already thought of a way the sign could be changed to not do that. She's concerned that the judge will ignore all that when they see the proximity of my car to the signage.
I'm thinking maybe I've been a bit silly, I was wondering what other people in here think.
I initially sort advice citing the lack of location number and was told that is not required (although I would contened that it's misleading as it looks like something that would be needed) but there was something wrong with the sign, in that it is forbidding and attempts to state what it does not allow then offer terms for doing it. Good point I thought, someone else pointed out to me "that text in the black box the words "otherwise than in accordance with the above" are meaningless, as there are no terms written above which deal with parking (all the terms are set out below)"
Anyway I refused to pay, I did respond to the NTK refusing to name the driver and the letter before court, I was instructed to not go all in bringing up the forbidding signage at that point but save that for the initial court defence, but hint at there being something wrong with the sign, I'm starting to think this was a mistake now, so the court papers came through 2 weeks ago (I have told the court already I wish to defend the claim).
I'm a bit concerned now, I have been in touch with someone who was helping me write a defence and she thinks the proximity of the sign to my car (right next to it) makes a difference and is now suggesting "try and negotiate a fee with them rather than fight in court".
Now, I thought that sign was more obviously forbidding than others I've seen, she seems to think it's not a forbidding sign.
To me, it still seems to be a sign that states what you're not allowed to do then lays out terms for doing it. I've already thought of a way the sign could be changed to not do that. She's concerned that the judge will ignore all that when they see the proximity of my car to the signage.
I'm thinking maybe I've been a bit silly, I was wondering what other people in here think.
