DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9314--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: BigPoppa
Date: November 5, 2023, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
I have drafted the below response -
In the Matter of a Parking Charge Notice on Private Land
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to formally challenge the parking invoice issued to the
driver, herein referred to as the 'Notice,' in relation to the
parking incident that occurred on 20/12/22 at Kings Square
Shopping Centre, West Bromwich. I assert that this Notice is a
matter of contract law, and I contend that no valid contract was
established with the driver for the following reasons:
Ambiguity in Signage:
On the date and time of the Notice (22:57 PM), the signage
present on the site was inadequately illuminated and not clearly
visible to the driver. The driver's vehicle was parked facing
the road where no signs were displayed, which further hindered
their ability to perceive the signage.
Lack of Signage Awareness:
The driver did not have a reasonable opportunity to observe or
comprehend the signage when entering the car park due to its
obscured visibility and the angle from which the driver entered.
Absence of Road Markings:
Even during daylight hours, the area where the driver parked
lacked both signage and road markings, offering no indication of
parking regulations.
Ownership Discrepancies:
There is legitimate doubt regarding the ownership of the land in
question, and it is not established that it is owned by the
purported parties.
Forbidding Nature of Signage:
The signage at the site unequivocally forbids parking vehicles
without a valid permit. It does not extend an invitation to park
under any terms, but rather strictly limits parking to permit
holders. As such, the terms imposed by the signage cannot apply
to vehicles without a permit.
In support of my position, I refer you to relevant case law,
notably PCM-UK v Bull et al [B4GF17X2 - 2016], UKPC v Masterson
[B4GF26K6 - 2016], and Horizon Parking v Mr. J [C5GF17X2 -
2016]. In these cases, the signage was determined to be
forbidding in nature, resulting in a finding of trespass rather
than a contractual breach. This establishes that no contractual
relationship existed with the driver.
Furthermore, the information provided in the Notice to Keeper
which PoFA mandates is grossly incorrect, as the statutory
warning is found in paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 4 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), not in paragraph 14 as stated
in the Notice to Keeper. PoFA mandates that this warning be
included in a Notice to Keeper, and in this case, it has not
been properly provided. It is essential to note that the
statutory period within which the right to enforce against the
keeper may be exercised by the creditor is 28 days, commencing
from the day following the notice's issuance. Contrary to the
21-day period indicated in the Notice to Keeper, PoFA prescribes
a 28-day timeframe.
I have attached photographic evidence depicting the poor
visibility of the signage and the absence of road markings,
further substantiating my claims.
Additionally, it is a fundamental principle of common law that
third parties cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon
individuals who are not parties to a contract. In this matter,
there was no valid contract established with the driver.
I kindly request the utilisation of impartial and qualified
assessors who adhere to legal and equitable standards. I implore
you to consider this appeal and refrain from pursuing any
further demands on the invoice, as this ongoing matter is
causing me undue stress and distress.
I trust that you will conduct a thorough and fair assessment of
the facts presented and act in accordance with the principles of
law and justice.
Yours faithfully,
How does this read? Does anyone know when the defense needs to
be in by? [member=103]DWMB2[/member] [member=428]H C
Andersen[/member] [member=10]andy_foster[/member]
#Post#: 9470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: BigPoppa
Date: November 7, 2023, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi I'm just pushing this one back up as I have not had any
comments on the letter or when the defence needs to be in by.
I hope someone can reply.
#Post#: 9475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 7, 2023, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what the 'letter' you're talking about is for?
Your aim now is to draft a defence. If you haven't already, you
should find other examples of successful defences on the PePiPoo
and MSE Forums, and the MSE guide to the court process here
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585
The deadline for your defence is 28 days from the date of
service of the claim, which is the fifth day after the date of
issue.
I wouldn't recommend waiting until the last minute, in case
there are technical issues.
#Post#: 9479--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: BigPoppa
Date: November 7, 2023, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks [member=103]DWMB2[/member]
I'm not sure if you saw this is my defence here? -
I have drafted the below response -
In the Matter of a Parking Charge Notice on Private Land
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to formally challenge the parking invoice issued to the
driver, herein referred to as the 'Notice,' in relation to the
parking incident that occurred on 20/12/22 at Kings Square
Shopping Centre, West Bromwich. I assert that this Notice is a
matter of contract law, and I contend that no valid contract was
established with the driver for the following reasons:
Ambiguity in Signage:
On the date and time of the Notice (22:57 PM), the signage
present on the site was inadequately illuminated and not clearly
visible to the driver. The driver's vehicle was parked facing
the road where no signs were displayed, which further hindered
their ability to perceive the signage.
Lack of Signage Awareness:
The driver did not have a reasonable opportunity to observe or
comprehend the signage when entering the car park due to its
obscured visibility and the angle from which the driver entered.
Absence of Road Markings:
Even during daylight hours, the area where the driver parked
lacked both signage and road markings, offering no indication of
parking regulations.
Ownership Discrepancies:
There is legitimate doubt regarding the ownership of the land in
question, and it is not established that it is owned by the
purported parties.
Forbidding Nature of Signage:
The signage at the site unequivocally forbids parking vehicles
without a valid permit. It does not extend an invitation to park
under any terms, but rather strictly limits parking to permit
holders. As such, the terms imposed by the signage cannot apply
to vehicles without a permit.
In support of my position, I refer you to relevant case law,
notably PCM-UK v Bull et al [B4GF17X2 - 2016], UKPC v Masterson
[B4GF26K6 - 2016], and Horizon Parking v Mr. J [C5GF17X2 -
2016]. In these cases, the signage was determined to be
forbidding in nature, resulting in a finding of trespass rather
than a contractual breach. This establishes that no contractual
relationship existed with the driver.
Furthermore, the information provided in the Notice to Keeper
which PoFA mandates is grossly incorrect, as the statutory
warning is found in paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 4 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), not in paragraph 14 as stated
in the Notice to Keeper. PoFA mandates that this warning be
included in a Notice to Keeper, and in this case, it has not
been properly provided. It is essential to note that the
statutory period within which the right to enforce against the
keeper may be exercised by the creditor is 28 days, commencing
from the day following the notice's issuance. Contrary to the
21-day period indicated in the Notice to Keeper, PoFA prescribes
a 28-day timeframe.
I have attached photographic evidence depicting the poor
visibility of the signage and the absence of road markings,
further substantiating my claims.
Additionally, it is a fundamental principle of common law that
third parties cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon
individuals who are not parties to a contract. In this matter,
there was no valid contract established with the driver.
I kindly request the utilisation of impartial and qualified
assessors who adhere to legal and equitable standards. I implore
you to consider this appeal and refrain from pursuing any
further demands on the invoice, as this ongoing matter is
causing me undue stress and distress.
I trust that you will conduct a thorough and fair assessment of
the facts presented and act in accordance with the principles of
law and justice.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 9480--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 7, 2023, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That reads more like a letter than a defence, see my post above
about looking at other examples.
#Post#: 9714--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: BigPoppa
Date: November 9, 2023, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Please see my defence attached and let me know your thoughts.
Thanks in advance.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 9724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 9, 2023, 5:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
>
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585<br
/>If you haven't been to court before I'd advise reading it
thoroughly.
>
--- End Quote ---
Did you read the post I linked to, and have you read any other
examples of defences? I don't mean for this to sound overly
critical, but it would seem that you haven't - what you have
posted does not read like a defence, but more like a mixture of
POPLA appeal and witness statement (indeed, you refer to it as
an 'appeal' in the document itself).
If you look at the example defence on MSE, and other examples
there and on PePiPoo, you'll see that the purpose of a defence
is to refute each of the elements of their claim as set out in
the particulars of claim. It does not get into evidence (so no
photos, or links etc.) - evidence is presented separately
alongside witness statements. It also shouldn't be written in
the first person, so no "I", refer to yourself as "the
defendant".
#Post#: 9748--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: BigPoppa
Date: November 10, 2023, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry [member=103]DWMB2[/member] but this can be very confusing
for newbies like me!!
In any case, I have re-read it all again and have drafted the
defence attached. Any support would be very welcome.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 9751--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 10, 2023, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In your defence you say:
--- Quote ---
> The Defendant denies driving the car on 20/12/22.
--- End Quote ---
But in your opening post you say:
--- Quote from: BigPoppa link ---
>
> I was unaware that I could not park there as I could not see
any signs at night.
>
--- End Quote ---
Lying in court is a serious criminal offence - don't deny
driving if you were. You don't need to tell them who was driving
(unless directly asked in the hearing), but it's important you
don't deny something that is true.
You will be able to expand on the forbidding signage argument in
the witness statement, but I wonder if it would be worth making
mention in the defence (only a few words perhaps) - you deny
that a contract was entered into, but perhaps an additional
point that you deny that the signage at the site is capable of
forming a contract.
#Post#: 9764--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking County court letter
DIR By: BigPoppa
Date: November 10, 2023, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How about this? -
The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper
of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.
3. The defendant first heard about this parking charge by post
on 05/01/23 and feels harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt
recovery’ letters. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to
the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’
requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
Schedule 4.
The I have added a line at the end of point 13 -
13. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of
small font, such that they would be considered incapable of
binding any person reading them under common contract law, and
would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.
Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to
pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed. The defendant
denies that the signage at the site is capable of forming a
contract.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page