UKPC / DCBL Letter

patient_dream

UKPC signs have always been rubbish.  This is probably just one of many sites that the BPA do not and failed to audit.

Is that the only sign, what about the entrance ?

The added yellow lines are irrelevant as are any other signs that were added after your ticket was issued

LewisN2

patient_dream said:

UKPC signs have always been rubbish.  This is probably just one of many sites that the BPA do not and failed to audit.

Is that the only sign, what about the entrance ?

The added yellow lines are irrelevant as are any other signs that were added after your ticket was issued

i added the comment about the yellow lines to highlight the fact that they should have been there in the first place, another brownie point if you will.

i do not know with regards to if there was a sign at entrance at the time of the ticket - but atleast that the sign i posted on previous page is the only included sign of the image as part of the SAR 

Jenni_D

And as I mentioned previously ... can a person with a blue badge park on those DYLs, or stop there for loading/unloading, or are these forbidden by the signage? If it is forbidden then using DYLs provides conflicting information so the doctrine of Contra Proforentem would apply ... they should have used Double Red Lines for example if they wanted to avoid confusion.  

D_P_Dance

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-383-2653?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

patient_dream

LewisN2 said:

patient_dream said:

UKPC signs have always been rubbish.  This is probably just one of many sites that the BPA do not and failed to audit.

Is that the only sign, what about the entrance ?

The added yellow lines are irrelevant as are any other signs that were added after your ticket was issued

i added the comment about the yellow lines to highlight the fact that they should have been there in the first place, another brownie point if you will.

i do not know with regards to if there was a sign at entrance at the time of the ticket - but atleast that the sign i posted on previous page is the only included sign of the image as part of the SAR 

Well, if that's all they provided, they are firmly on course to lose ?

Just wait now, see how DCBL reply.  DCBL cannot claim the debt recovery charge wheeze as the dates refer to a previous code of practice.  The fake add on can only be construed as abuse of process / double recovery 

DCBL and probably UKPC look at this forum .... just wait now  

D_P_Dance

IF they have added an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. take not that some Judges have dismissed an entire claim .. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

LewisN2

ok guys so i have not sent anything at all to DCB Legal, and have already recieved by SAR package so i guess there is no need for me to ask for the 30 day legal advice hold as i already have the SAR?

so should i just not send them anything and see if they take me to court or should i sent them a letter saying i deny all debt? if so can somebody help me with an email or postal address - i cant find an email apart from sales email...

the reason i ask this question is because i dont need any extra time due to having the sar so its just a matter of seeing if they pull through?

LewisN2

also the sign says clearly no roadside parking so i kind of feel i am bang to rights here regardless of if there were not double yellows, it shows the sign in view of where ive parked.

Jenni_D

There's that victim mindset again! 🙄

THE SIGNS WERE NOT CLEAR AND OBVIOUS!!!!! You didn't see them, so how can you be bound by contractual terms that weren't clear and obvious?

Nor were there any DYLs (or lines of any colour) to draw attention to the fact that perhaps parking wasn't allowed at that location - in the absence of lines, and without clear and obvious signage next to where you parked*, then any normal person would assume parking there was OK.

Edit: * their photos show signage near parking bays - again not obvious that it applies to a roadway without DYLs or other markings.  

Trainerman

Jenni_D said:

There's that victim mindset again! 🙄

THE SIGNS WERE NOT CLEAR AND OBVIOUS!!!!! You didn't see them, so how can you be bound by contractual terms that weren't clear and obvious?

Nor were there any DYLs (or lines of any colour) to draw attention to the fact that perhaps parking wasn't allowed at that location - in the absence of lines, and without clear and obvious signage next to where you parked, then any normal person would assume parking there was OK.

Got to agree with Jenni_D again. Stop and consider. There were NO DYL. Do you really think that you could have read that small print (or even spotted the sign) from where you were? Do you think a Judge would expect you to read that stuff at long range?? IMHO you think you are 'bang to rights' and most of us disagree. Your call though.