Loading...
-
I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.
If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .
I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.
You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here. -
Hi Ptilley, thank you very much for your response but unfortunately that link does not seem to go anywhere? Could you try a different link please? ThanksComment
-
Link works??Comment
-
Here's some text I saved about permits and forbidding signs:
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./Comment
-
link works now, thank you very muchComment
-
Thank you OSTELL for the notice clarification.Comment
-
Victory at last, although somewhat pyrrhic I feel. Having complained to the BPA over 100 days ago about TPS's behaviour(or their legal representatives at least) in the light of blatant failings to meet the requirement of POFA, BPA have today advised that TPS have cancelled the PCN. It is however some 8 months and 75 emails later since their legal rep(BWL), advised me of the alleged 'outstanding charge'. Throughout that time, BWL continued to attempt to justify their clients claim, even when I shared the numerous failings of their clients case with them, instead they just kept offering easy payment terms in the hope I suppose, that I would just give up and pay. I invited them to test their claim in court on several occasions which they seemed reluctant to do and my offer to use arbitration was ignored completely.
I would like to thank OSTELL and the many contributors to this site for the abundance of information that offers the incite to challenge the outrageous behaviour and business models of some of these private parking companies.Comment
-
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.Comment
Tweet
Comment