Gladstones Claim Form

[therealrjp]

@therealrjp, thanks. That photograph materially strengthens the signage/contract formation point, and it also clarifies the 11:34 timestamp.

The only photograph at 11:34:17 is a photograph of the sign, not the vehicle. The vehicle photographs run only from 11:32:36 to 11:33:13, so PPS's entire photographic evidence of the vehicle covers just 37 seconds. Yet the NtK alleges that the vehicle "at 11:34 was parked". There is no photograph showing the vehicle at 11:34.

The sign itself is particularly useful. It says:

"If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice"

but the relevant term then says:

"No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time."

And, remarkably, at the bottom it says:

"DO NOT PARK HERE UNLESS YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS & CONDITIONS DISPLAYED"

That creates a rather awkward contractual proposition for PPS. Their Particulars of Claim expressly say that the signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract "accepted by the act of parking", while their own sign says both "No parking ... at any time" and "Do not park here unless you agree".

In other words, the very act which Gladstones plead constituted acceptance of the alleged contract is simultaneously the act expressly prohibited by the sign. That does not mean I am going to make the simplistic argument that prohibitory signage can never give rise to contractual liability. The point is much narrower: PPS must prove the contractual case that they have actually pleaded — precisely what was offered, what the consideration was, when and how the terms were communicated, and how this particular alleged offer was capable of acceptance "by the act of parking".

The photograph is also useful on the question of notice. This appears to be PPS's only evidential photograph of any contractual sign. It proves that this particular sign existed on a pole, but it does not establish where that pole was relative to the entrance or where the vehicle stopped, what signage was displayed at the entrance, whether the driver necessarily passed this particular sign before stopping, or whether the relatively small contractual wording was capable of being read from a moving vehicle before the alleged contract was supposedly accepted.

The 37-second period is also significant. PPS's photographs can certainly be evidence that the vehicle was stationary between the times shown; No one is suggesting otherwise. But that is a different question from whether the NtK complies with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the NtK itself to specify the "period of parking". This NtK specifies only the single time of 11:34, at which PPS has not even produced a photograph of the vehicle.

As for the landowner contract, I would not argue that it simply expired after 12 months because it contains an automatic continuation provision. There are, however, other issues with it which I will address in the Defence, including the absence from the evidence supplied of the site map which the contract itself expressly requires to define the boundaries, and the question of what authority "TRADE SALES" actually had over the relevant land.

There are therefore several useful defence points here. For now, just make sure the AoS is submitted as discussed, defending the whole claim, and do not identify the driver.

I will put together the Defence for you later today or tomorrow.

Thank you for all of your effort so far, it is really appreciated.

I am submitting the AoS today and look forward to the Defence!