Couple park their car at 9:40 and at 9:45 they were issued a Penalty Notice.
Paid up but took matters to court - parking company had erected signs but these were "open to interpretation".
After many months the case made the courts and the couple got some money back + some costs but not their legal fees. Couple have created a precedent at that carpark and now many others will get their money back.
Parking was Falkirk, Parking Management Co based in Birmingham.
In the intervening months the couple were threatened with legal matters, debt collectors etc but held out and WON!!!!!
|
now many others will get their money back.
...and pigs might fly!
|
|
|
|
Does this not imply that if the signs were unambiguous and not open to interpretation that the charge would have been enforceable? Many on here have argued that such contracts would be unenforceable in any circumstance. Do you have a link to further details of this case FB?
|
The report was in the Falkirk Herald but not the on-line version as yet (paper came out today)
Notice was ambiguous so Parking Co fell at the 1st Hurdle ...............like horse racing you fall at the 1st hurdle the race is over 99% of the time.
The couple had amassed lots of information but only needed the ambiguous sign to win the case.
|
|
Thanks FB . That does tend to imply that a contract can be established by a correctly worded sign since the very ambiguity of the sign was seemingly the reason that no contract existed.
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/fallback/coming-soon.jpg)
