This was incorrect - the court staff were a few days behind, and it has now been discovered the appeal was lodged after all.
The Prankster's view remains the same.
The Unfair terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR 1999) apply.
As a judge has already ruled the contract (signage) is ambiguous, then 7(2) will apply, which means, in The Prankster's opinion, District Enforcement have no hope in enforcing tickets for parking completely outside marked bays. He suggests that rather than chuck money away in legal fees for an appeal, they spend the money to change the wording of the signs, or paint markings such as hatchings, or both.
Written contracts
7.—(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most
favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.
District Enforcement will of course know all about UTCCR 1999 because the company was formed by 3 fast-track law graduates from Staffordshire University. Mystery shrouds their contract with Staffordshire University and why it was apparently awarded without any tendering process. Meanwhile, 2 of the original directors have left, leaving only Danil Kurpil. Graham McKie was the latest director to leave on 27/10/2014, with documentation filed on 3/12/2014.
Here is the signage in question.
Here is the signage in question.
The 6th condition clearly implies you can park outside marked bays as long as no obstruction is caused, and as long as conditions 3 and 5 are not broken.
However, it is also apparent from the signage that there is no genuine offer to park and that the charge of £70 is a disguised penalty, and therefore unenforceable.
However, it is also apparent from the signage that there is no genuine offer to park and that the charge of £70 is a disguised penalty, and therefore unenforceable.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Can one take the sign to imply that if one commits all 5 ahem parking "incidents" within one parking act that an invoice for £350 will be issued?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, if condition 4 were to mean what they apparently think that it means, then they wouldn't need 3, 5 or 6.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's on the assumption that they didn't deliberately set up bays to entrap motorists. Perish the thought.
Were those signs even there at the time of the "incident"?