Respond with the following;
UK CPM have not addressed the primacy of contract issue.
My tenancy agreement DIRECTLY provides me with the right to park my car on the land in question - there is nothing in my agreement which requires me to agree to or abide by any third party parking schemes.
The operator contends that I have breached the terms of the agreement which they allege exists between UK CPM and myself - that breach being 'that I failed to park wholly in a marked bay'.
My contention is, that in order to breach the terms of a contract, a contract must exist in the first instance - UK CPM appear to contend that each time I enter the land, I form a contract with them and agree to abide by its terms - my contention is, that I have never formed any contract with UK CPM on the grounds that I do not need to form such a contract because my right to park already exists due to my tenancy agreement and that this right to park is not subject to any further conditions - this is known as 'primacy of contract'.
The parking operators evidence is therefore meaningless since I do not have and have never had any contract with them - their whole case and all their evidence is based on a contract which has never existed.
Parking a car on the land does not demonstrate the formation of a contract with UK CPM when my right to park said car comes from a previously negotiated contract.
How does UK CPM plan on demonstrating that I have a contract with them?
The parking operators comments on the signage are of no relevance because I do not need to additionally agree to their contract terms on each visit to a car park where I already have the right to park.
Why would I form a contract with a third party parking operator (a contract which simply gives them the right to issue £100 speculative invoices) when I do not need to?
Why doesn't UK CPM answer this simple question?
