Too Many Signs ?, Can there be Too Many Signs. Options

[Essexparking]

Can too many signs help with defence.

In the middle of a dispute with a parking company on private land .
There are 15 signs relating to parking in small car park for about 10 cars, including, no parking, free parking, do not park here, limited time parking, ANPR signs, two different CCTV signs and customers only signs.
Further signs for cash machines, signs for trading times, adverts and specials in the stores etc.
Two different sets of terms and conditions both hide the penalty fee in the small print at the end the driver did not see it when they parked and dashed into a shop.
Will County Court hold that it is reasonable to expect someone to have walked around and read all the signs before leaving the car?
The driver doesnt read all that fast and when they went back to read the signs after getting PCN it took them 10min to check and read all signs.

Grateful of any comments even if its to say just pay up as do not have a chance at Court.
Thanks.

This post has been edited by Essexparking: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 09:33

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Which parking company?

Signs with conflicting information will be more interesting, e.g. no parking / free parking.

[Essexparking]

Ok thanks.
Its all a bit daunting I did not realise these companies have so much power.

Thought best not to name company as sure they read this too ?

They have already told me “our solicitors have heard and disregarded anything you might find on the internet”

Maybe I will just have to find the money?

[Redivi]

They only have the power that you think they do
Like most bullies they back down when challenged

Why do you believe what they tell you ?
The only solicitors that act for parking companies are the bottom feeders of the profession that issue robo-claims - hundreds of automated claims every day
They never even see their clients' documents unless a claim is defended and they have to do some work

[Essexparking]

Ok again thank you.

I believe them because I have never owed anyone money for anything before and the thought of Court is scary.

£100 or even the original £60 is more than I have to spare and all because the driver went into the shop next to the one whos bay they apparently parked in.

Is it better paying £100 now because if case is lost at court and they want £200 or more will be seriously stuck ?

This post has been edited by Essexparking: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 09:41

[Redivi]

With our help, most members pay nothing at all

Which company ?

We know which ones are likely to take legal action and, if they do, will make a pig's ear of it

[Dave65]

In the meantime you may want to edit your post and remove anything that may ID the driver.
Only refer to "the driver" did this or that some of the PPC read these forums.

[Macapaca]

Assuming you have received a PCN, what does it say?

[Jlc]

If you do not want to tell us the company then look up their likely court record Here.

Are they really litigious?

[Churchmouse]

Can too many signs help with defence.

...

Grateful of any comments even if its to say just pay up as I do not have a chance at Court.
Thanks.

Please EDIT your posts as requested!

This is important, as some approaches depend on whether or not the PPC knows the name of the driver or only knows the name of the registered keeper. If you've already ID'd the driver to the PPC, not all is lost, but it can make your job of defending a PCN more difficult.

Too many signs can indeed be a problem for the PPC. This is because their claim will be based on the notion that the driver of your vehicle (assuming you are the registered keeper) voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions offered by the PPC via the signage at the location. An offer of a contract of parking must be clear and unequivocal; otherwise the driver could not have reasonably formed an agreement with the PPC to pay the parking charge when he or she parked at that location. The more signs with contradictory terms the better! Get pictures--lots of 'em (before they change them).

--Churchmouse

This post has been edited by Churchmouse: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 23:53

[Essexparking]

Thank you everyone. Did the edits. (I hope correctly)

Checked using the link and the company took some to court in 2016 and less 2017 but they say they win 90% of the cases, does that mean people pay before court or is the company making it up.

Will see what arrives in the post next .

This post has been edited by Essexparking: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 09:56

[Jlc]

They're not going to say otherwise are they? We only win 10% of cases...

90% is quite possible as most will pay up upon receiving the claim or put in a shocking defence. Yes, they are potentially enforceable but they don't win them all, especially when properly defended.

If they've had zero 2018 claims then it's probably hot air.

[Redivi]

One company has a confirmed 80+% success rate without a single court hearing

It's made up of people that cave in or for a number of reasons don't reply, handing the company a default judgment

Only about 5% of claims get as far as a hearing

[Essexparking]

Thanks.
Feel little less stressed now.
Has been taking over my mind for a month .

Today taken loads of pictures of everything in and around the shops where it happened, now will relax until next letter comes .

[peterguk]

Today taken loads of pictures

Upload them here so members to comment.

[Jlc]

Also bear in mind that's its often uneconomical for the claim to go to a hearing. But many bigger companies are happy to let some go as they have plenty of cash from all the others to fund it...

[Redivi]

Before October 2012 and the Protection of Freedoms Act, "Not the driver" was a complete defence

Immediately afterward ParkingEye issued thousands of claims and obtained a lot of wins before more comprehensive defences caught up

Every hearing was a financial loss but the publicity of the wins persuaded the rest to pay up

ParkingEye has an additional incentive to take court action
Its parking charges are usually about £85 and they don't inflate claims with fictitious debt collector charges

They do, however, employ an in-house solicitor that entitles them to add £50 to every claim
As a result, a parking notice that's paid after a claim without a hearing produces about twice the profit of one that's paid immediately

I checked ParkingEye's accounts once and the "Rachel charge" on their claims amounted to more than 20% of their turnover and was the difference between profit and loss

[KH_]

Can too many signs help with defence.

<SNIPPED>

Please EDIT your posts as requested!

This is important, as some approaches depend on whether or not the PPC knows the name of the driver or only knows the name of the registered keeper. If you've already ID'd the driver to the PPC, not all is lost, but it can make your job of defending a PCN more difficult.

Too many signs can indeed be a problem for the PPC. This is because their claim will be based on the notion that the driver of your vehicle (assuming you are the registered keeper) voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions offered by the PPC via the signage at the location. An offer of a contract of parking must be clear and unequivocal; otherwise the driver could not have reasonably formed an agreement with the PPC to pay the parking charge when he or she parked at that location. The more signs with contradictory terms the better! Get pictures--lots of 'em (before they change them).

--Churchmouse

You might want to edit your quote of his now edited quote

[Churchmouse]

Can too many signs help with defence.

<SNIPPED>

Please EDIT your posts as requested!

This is important, as some approaches depend on whether or not the PPC knows the name of the driver or only knows the name of the registered keeper. If you've already ID'd the driver to the PPC, not all is lost, but it can make your job of defending a PCN more difficult.

Too many signs can indeed be a problem for the PPC. This is because their claim will be based on the notion that the driver of your vehicle (assuming you are the registered keeper) voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions offered by the PPC via the signage at the location. An offer of a contract of parking must be clear and unequivocal; otherwise the driver could not have reasonably formed an agreement with the PPC to pay the parking charge when he or she parked at that location. The more signs with contradictory terms the better! Get pictures--lots of 'em (before they change them).

--Churchmouse

You might want to edit your quote of his now edited quote

Whoops...

--Churchmouse