The case first came to light in October 2007 when Bury Council's Trading Standards received a complaint.
Barratts advertised in a local newspaper that Hamilton Place, Walmersley Road had secure parking facilities. This was one of 14 advertisements which had been placed since October 2004 which indicated that the "many properties include… private secure parking".
-- Advertisement --
Upon completion the development at Walmersley Road provided only communal, insecure parking.
Whilst there was no statutory definition of what is required to establish "secure parking" the case rested on the basis of security present that would prevent access on to the car parking areas by those who had no right to be there.
In this case there was nothing to prevent access to the car parking areas by any member of the driving public. People wanting to steal vehicles could enter the area and drive a vehicle out without having to negotiate a barrier.
Barratts' explanation to the court was that there was a scale model of the development at the site showing to potential buyers the absence of barriers and that they interpreted the word 'secure' in the adverts as meaning secure by design, but that they were pleading guilty because they could see how it could be interpreted differently by members of the public.
After pleading not guilty Barratts were found guilty and fined £2,500 with additional costs of £2,255.
(JM)
