PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Uk Car Management Fine, 2 years ago - car had heating issues
SAFEQAZ
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 16:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Hi Guys,

Received a fine for parking in private road 2 years ago, yes 2 years ago, legally is this still enforceable?

Attached the pic of the letter received from Gladstone's and a sign showing no parking ( this is only at the start of the road) ( other signs on the wall simply state no parking, illegally parked vehicles will be towed away)

Driver was parked here literally not even 10 minutes as they went to get a bottle of water as the car had heating issues. Popped into Tescos and walaaah a fine!

A letter was sent explaining this but no response received and since then nothing really and all of a sudden bang solicitors letter.

Whats the next step guys? Any advice?
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Sun, 27 May 2018 - 16:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 11:54
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Shall i enter a sentence stating "Please reply within 30 days or i will deem the matter as closed"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 13:04
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Yes, putting a time limit on a reply keeps the pressure on them. I think 30 days is actually quite generous given that they have already had seven weeks. However, giving them a further 30 days shows (to the court that you are being reasonable.

I wouldn't assume this will kill it off but hopefully it will push it into their 'too hard' file. Remember that they just want quick and easy wins.

You might also add that your letters and their replies will be filed and presented to the court should they decide to take that course of action. This just points out that you are not an easy target and reminds them that poor replies will not help their case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 21:52
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Ok so I have received an update on this and received some pathetic picture from Gladstones showing the car park and the forbidden area where you cannot park. I replied stating that this is not what I asked for and If I do not receive what I ask for then the matter is closed.

I have just received a claim from from the county court!! Which I intend to defend.. Any tips on what to do, I have filled in the acknolwedgement of service and ticked both boxes which say defend all the claim and I intend to contest jurisdiction..

Whats the next steps here?

Thanks guys
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotWater
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 23:59
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,529



QUOTE (SAFEQAZ @ Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 21:52) *
I have filled in the acknolwedgement of service and ticked both boxes which say defend all the claim and I intend to contest jurisdiction..

Good on acknowledging and defending all, but why are you contesting jurisdiction?

Post up a copy of the claim form too.

Don't be too surprised that they have sent it, or read too much into it. It only cost £25 to submit and they are paying to pressurise you.

This post has been edited by HotWater: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 23:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Tue, 12 Mar 2019 - 11:49
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Hello,

I thought contesting jurisdiction means the fact that im willing to fight them in court?? I assume this is not the case, so what does this mean (doh), clearly i was hyped up.

Will put a pic of the claim form soon, theres a few pages, first page simply on acknowledgement other one is if i would like to defend then i require to submit a defense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 12 Mar 2019 - 13:51
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 535
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



QUOTE (SAFEQAZ @ Tue, 12 Mar 2019 - 11:49) *
I thought contesting jurisdiction means the fact that im willing to fight them in court??

Jurisdiction means what areas of the country and of the law that court covers. So if the case was outside of England and Wales, or was criminal, or concerned matters handled by the Family Court etc, then you would want to alert the court to this fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 09:21
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,700
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



MSE forum, Newbies thread, post two, read it. Follow the process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 11:10
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



I have attached the picture of the claim and am currently preparing a defence based on previous examples. However i did not manage to find a defence on prohibited parking. I will post my defence soon.

So now i have contested jurisdiction, will that have an impact?
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 11:51
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Ok so i have prepared a defence by looking at other cases, however i could not find a case for "forbidden parking"

1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

6. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I had pulled over due to car heating issues and not parked. I was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.

7. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.

8. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely states “No Parking on Access Roads”, giving no definition of the term 'Access Roads', nor indicating where the Access Roads are located. There was nothing to suggest that one sign could relate to parking on the roadway where the kerb was unmarked. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping'.

9. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

10. I was given no fair chance to read any terms at all, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

11. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

12. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.

13. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.

14. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and pursue payment by means of litigation.

15. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

16. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

17. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield).
In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

18. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

19. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

Please let me know in this case if point 15 is valid? Also if someone can find an example of where a defence has been used before specifically for No Parking on Access Roads or a similar case.

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks

This post has been edited by SAFEQAZ: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 13:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 10:46
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Hey Guys any help here as i need to submit this sooon.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 21:35
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Ok guys, i have received my court date which is the 15th of November, so coming soon.
I have received a witness statement from Gladstones, which seems like it is literally replying to my defence. Please see attached pictures.

Please advice next steps, i am working on my witness statement which i will post in next few days, this will mainly focus on the terrible sign and no marking on the roads.
Please let me know if i need to reply specifically to any points mentioned in the pictures?

Statement images
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 10:11
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,048
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



In regard to the £60 add-on, this has been the subject of a number of Judges not only disallowing it, but in some cases throwing out the entire claim as an ‘Abuse of Process’. There’s a lengthy thread running on MSE which you might find beneficial to read. It includes a suggested response to include in defences/Witness Statements (post #14).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=6014081
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 18:25
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



WITNESS STATEMENT

I, xxxxx of xxx will say as follows:
I am the Defendant and registered keeper of the vehicle in this case. I am unrepresented with no legal background or training and have had no previous experience of county court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of evidentiary documents marked Exhibit AC1 to AC7 to which I will refer.

1. I deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Claimant asserts that my vehicle parked in a restricted/prohibited area.
3. Before I describe what happened on the day when my vehicle was stopped due to overheating issues in the Godfrey Mews, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a) I have not breached any terms and conditions of parking.
b) My vehicle was not parked in any reasonably visible restricted/prohibited areas.
c) There were no parking signs on the entrance of the road
d) The grace period of 10 minutes was not followed



BACKGROUND

4. On the 10th May 2016 I had entered a side road as my car had overheated, I stopped my car and went to a shop to buy some water to cool the car. (Exhibit AC1) shows the route I took into the road, there are no parking signs to the entrance of this road which can be seen in (Exhibit AC2).

5. I came back to my car in less than 10 minutes, this can be seen in the Claimants’ photographs which shows the penalty was given in 7 minutes. I was shocked to see a PCN and ultimately this was issued on a poorly signed private road where I had pulled over due to heating issues and not parked.

UNCLEAR SIGNAGE
6. I was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.

7. The parking sign in the evidence attached to the Claimants bundle is not applicable to this road because this sign is on the entrance to a church as seen in (Exhibit AC3 and AC4) which cannot be seen if you enter Godfrey Mews.
8. If this was a truly no parking zone I would expect to sign double yellow signs or hatched lines to communicate ‘no stopping’ on the road and as seen in Claimants’ photographs there are no signs or road markings.
9. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign is prohibitive. The Claimant’s sign is in small print, the terms are illegible. Thus, no contract was formed with me to pay any sum at all, since the sign has no legible ‘charge’ which could be visible on arrival. From the pictorial evidence in the Claimants’ photographs, you can see that the font type is incredibly small and would not be legible from the driver’s seat and is therefore prohibitive
10. Upon a recent visit to the site, it appears now there is double yellow lines on the road as well as cones which prevent parking, this can be seen in (Exhibit AC5)
Claimants witness statement and addressing individual points.

11. Paragraph 12 – It is denied the Claimant would off mitigated this charge as it when appealed it was simply ignored and if evidence would have been required this would have been provided.
12. Paragraph 14 – Need some help here to what I can say
13. Paragraph 15 – It is denied as there are No signs on the entrance to this road, which is clearly seen in (Exhibit AC1). Even if there are 15 signs this is irrelevant as the entrance I entered from did not have one.
14. Paragraph 15 of the Claimants Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to ‘Vine v Waltham Forest’. The Court of Appeal on this case ruled in favour of the Defendant on the basis that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. It would appear that the Claimant is attempting to wrongfully persuade the court by mis-quoting Roch L.J. The full quote is this;

“Alternatively, and this is the ground principally urged upon us by Mr. Mott, the question whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or consents to trespass to his or her property is to be judge objectively and not subjectively. Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method landowners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property.”

15. As you can see, Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question.
16. Paragraph 23 – It is denied that the signs are clear, if this was the case then it would clearly be seen on the entrance to the site and not use a sign which is the entrance to a church car park, please refer to paragraph 6.
17. Paragraph 28 – The Claimants’ signs are in small print, the terms are illegible. Thus, no contract was formed with me to pay any sum at all, since the signs have no legible ‘charge’ which could be visible on arrival. From the pictorial evidence in the Claimants’ photographs, you can see that the font type is incredibly small and would not be legible from the driver’s seat and is therefore prohibitive.
18. Paragraph 32 – It is denied a grace period was offered as seen in Claimants Notice, the PCN was issued within 7 minutes.
19. Paragraph 33 – It is denied I was parked, I was simply stopped for less than 10 minutes and the parking operative had only observed me for 7 minutes before issuing the charge.
20. Paragraph 39 through 43 – As previously stated in paragraph 14 no contract was ever established and therefore no terms were breached.

Costs on the claim – disproportionate and disingenuous

21. Paragraph 28 – In addition to the ‘parking charge’, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value is inflated of the claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
22. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

23. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

24. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware that their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

25. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firms claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process (Exhibit AC6). The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

26. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies Exhibit AC7) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that Distract Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

27. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

28. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature of Defendant:

Name: XXXXXXX
Date: XX/XX/XXXX

Exhibit images
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 08:25
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Hello, can someone please critique my WS. Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 08:34
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 535
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Most of what you're put in your WS isn't about stuff you've witnessed: its making arguments etc. This is something that should be done later on your Skeleton Argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SAFEQAZ
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 15:13
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,020



Yes you are right, however it seems you can merge the WS and skeleton Argument into one. As the WS i recieved is also of similar format.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 22:12
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 535
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



The WS provided by PPCs are usually garbage - endless pages of irrelevant drivel. Judges allow this sort thing because it is small claims and claimants/defendants will often be doing this for the first time, and without legal representation. The PPCs abuse this lattitude.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 08:16
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,793
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



For your prohibiting 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.

Edit to suit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 08:47
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,700
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Vine - why do you say this case has no relevance?
It has TONS!
It upholds the principle that *you cannot be bound by terms that arent brought to your attention*
Your entire argument is that they werent brought to your atetntion, as there was no sign on the entrance, no markings on the ground to indicate no parking, etc. It was just a side road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 11th November 2019 - 19:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.