Thanks
@DWMB2I'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,
