Parking ticket

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

It says parking is allowed in certain circumstances and sets out the terms. One of them is in relation to buses, coaches etc. In the absence of someone not satisfying the conditions, the sign says no parking. So one would be party to the contract.

If parking is only allowed for coaches, buses etc then according to that sign other vehicles are not welcome on that site. Therefore the only recourse available would be trespass of which this can only be done by the landowner, not an appointed agent such as UKPC trying to recover monies in the form of PCN's for their own "terms and conditions"

[SantaBarbara]

pavarotti1980 said:

If parking is only allowed for coaches, buses etc then according to that sign other vehicles are not welcome on that site. Therefore the only recourse available would be trespass of which this can only be done by the landowner, not an appointed agent such as UKPC trying to recover monies in the form of PCN's for their own "terms and conditions"

But the White marking is for cars

[Alpinestars]

S11Steve said:

Alpinestars said:

It says parking is allowed in certain circumstances and sets out the terms. One of them is in relation to buses, coaches etc. In the absence of someone not satisfying the conditions, the sign says no parking. So one would be party to the contract.

See my comment from July 16th - UKCPS signage does not meet the requirements to form a contract, nor does it meet the "Beavis test"

Ask me how I know?



Also bear in mind that they were restricted from accessing DVLA keeper data due to their inadequate signs, but still haven't changed anything - http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dv...

And clear signage has been a problem for years with UKCPS - http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/uk...

Understood. And I was going to caveat what I said by saying, that the gist of what the poster was saying about it not forming a contract is not in itself correct. There may be other reasons a contract is not formed, as you point out, in which case the "is it a fish or fowl" is irrelevant.

[Alpinestars]

S11Steve said:

Alpinestars said:

It says parking is allowed in certain circumstances and sets out the terms. One of them is in relation to buses, coaches etc. In the absence of someone not satisfying the conditions, the sign says no parking. So one would be party to the contract.

See my comment from July 16th - UKCPS signage does not meet the requirements to form a contract, nor does it meet the "Beavis test"

Ask me how I know?



Also bear in mind that they were restricted from accessing DVLA keeper data due to their inadequate signs, but still haven't changed anything - http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dv...

And clear signage has been a problem for years with UKCPS - http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/uk...

Understood. And I was going to caveat what I said by saying, that the gist of what the poster was saying about it not forming a contract is not in itself correct. There may be other reasons a contract is not formed, as you point out, in which case the "is it a fish or fowl" is irrelevant.

[audi321]

I find it bizarre that the sign is talking about buses/etc. To be clear, this is a car park at Maplins and Staples and American Golf. There's an extremely sharp entrance and a overhead height restriction. There is no way a bus could even get in here, let alone a lorry!

[Alpinestars]

audi321 said:

I find it bizarre that the sign is talking about buses/etc. To be clear, this is a car park at Maplins and Staples and American Golf. There's an extremely sharp entrance and a overhead height restriction. There is no way a bus could even get in here, let alone a lorry!

I suspect it's a cookie cutter sign. Placed in all their car parks.

[S11Steve]

Alpinestars said:

I suspect it's a cookie cutter sign. Placed in all their car parks.

Pretty much, and I think it is one of their older signs too as it still says "Independent Parking Committee" in the bottom left corner - the ATA hasn't traded under that name since March 2016 - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/0824853...

If the Independent Appeals Service wasn't working hand in hand with the IPC and Gladstones, this Solicitors would be an easy appeal to win on signage. However since all three entities are run by the same corrupt pair of charlatans, an appeal is somewhat futile.

The best is simply to write them a letter outlining the reasons given in this thread why their alleged charge is invalid, and hope that it would deter them from instigating court action as they wouldn't want that same letter presented as a defense statement

[pavarotti1980]

SantaBarbara said:

But the White marking is for cars

And it seems buses too

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Monday 21st August 14:46

[The Mad Monk]

S11Steve said:

See my comment from July 16th - UKCPS signage does not meet the requirements to form a contract, nor does it meet the "Beavis test"

Ask me how I know?

O.K.

How do you know?

[S11Steve]

The Mad Monk said:

O.K.

How do you know?

Two court claims against my company dismissed because of it. Very short hearing where I only had to confirm my details before the judge ripped into their guy saying the claim was frivolous at best, an abuse of the court process and waste of his time at worst.

I forget the exact phrase used by the judge but along the lines of "incoherent, semi-pseudo-legalese" was used to describe the signage.

[Thermobaric]

Where can you look up guide lines for signs to see if they pass the Beavis test/meet contract requirements?

[Red Devil]

S11Steve said:

If the Independent Appeals Service wasn't working hand in hand with the IPC and Gladstones, this Solicitors would be an easy appeal to win on signage. However since all three entities are run by the same corrupt pair of charlatans, an appeal is somewhat futile.

Did you miss their latest wheeze in their desperate attempt to demonstrate otherwise re the IPC and Gladstones?
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/al...
It's about as farcical as draping a gigantic gauze veil over the Grand Canyon and pretending the chasm isn't there.

[S11Steve]

Thermobaric said:

Where can you look up guide lines for signs to see if they pass the Beavis test/meet contract requirements?

Start here for a plain english guide on Beavis and the implications - http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/fighting-beavis-ar...

A lot of what is said though comes from various lay-reps and MacKenzie friends who attend a lot of hearings and share transcripts. There are still some anomalies because the County Court judges can make their own call if there is no precedent to follow, however showing copies of transcripts and judgements where their peers have said certain signs or car parks do not meet the Beavis test can be used to help persuade them.