Dcbl letter before claim stage

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

In our very long experience, there is an inherent sociopathic mindset in the industry. Most parking firms repeatedly exhibit such a level of disrespect towards the public, that they think it's fine to blame drivers for everything.

We even had a self-admitted PPC poster this week telling us that if their crappy old coin machines fail to record a typed VRM and instead print an error code on a pay & display ticket, then in PPC World la-la land, the consumer deserves a PCN and it's their fault.

Unbelievable but typical.

It's the same greedy mindset that seems to have led to the two Judicial Reviews to block the new statutory Code of Practice - they simply cannot believe that anyone can dare to stand in the way of their gravy train.

Not Government and not individuals like you. Look what they've done:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6345732/secure-parking-solutions-ntk/p6

You are a pawn in their game.

I will have a read of this tonight. Based on your experience what do you think my chances are of winning this. Sick of the worry but only another month now until the hearing. 

Coupon-mad

The chances here are consistently 99% win rate in all reported outcomes since 2016, when we started counting.

As in almost every case, I believe yours will come down to the Judge's opinion about the signs.

Showing that the landowner felt the need to step in later and put up their own large warning entrance sign might be a key piece of evidence, along with the fact that, in the Claimant's unremarkable sign, the £100 was anything but 'prominent' (make sure the Judge knows that is the word used in the CRA 2015. A fair sign must be prominent, as must the onerous term itself).

And point out how much less conspicuous a black & white tiny text 45cmx45cm sign on a back wall is, than the large 60x45 yellow and black (with a large bold '£85' framed text box) sign was in Beavis, where the Supreme court also remarked that it was a key point that there were signs at the entrance that were 'bound to be seen'.

Cp100

Just received the claimants hearing index which includes mine and their defences and witness statements. I’m guessing I do not need to do anything with this or do the same? 

The hearing is next Friday, any advice on things I should be saying etc other than the repeating the points I’ve made in my witness statement?

thanks 

Cp100

Just received the claimants hearing index which includes mine and their defences and witness statements. I’m guessing I do not need to do anything with this or do the same? 

The hearing is next Friday, any advice on things I should be saying etc other than the repeating the points I’ve made in my witness statement?

thanks 

Cp100

Just updating this as I had the hearing today. 

I wasn’t quite sure what way the judge was going to go I couldn’t tell. When he saw about them issuing two separate court claims for the same issue and same car park he was not happy at all. 

He said he had no choice but to adjourn the hearing because what if he rules one thing then the next judge rules another. And also incurring two lots of court costs. 

So dcb legal now have 14 days to provide the court with a valid reason as to why the two claims were not consolidated and if it is not a good enough reason they will both be struck out. 

But as it stands another hearing will be set for both claims to be consolidated into one. 

I’m sure there won’t be any valid reason or explanation for dcb legal to get out of this one and both claims will be struck off. But I’ll wait and see, don’t want to get my hopes up. 

The feeling I got from the hearing as it’s not that easy to win and I could very well end up paying for both claims in the end. 

It was with district judge Peter Hatvany

Coupon-mad

Did you ask for your wasted costs for attending today? They caused it and wasted your time.

Too late now if you didn't pipe up and ask.

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Did you ask for your wasted costs for attending today? They caused it and wasted your time.

Too late now if you didn't pipe up and ask.

I did say about it and he said I would need to do a separate hearing or something for that or something along those lines. I think it was more because it was his decision to adjourn the case he wasn’t interested to be honest.

If it proceeds and both claims go back to court then I think I’m in trouble and likely not to win. There can’t be any valid reason why the claimant issued two separate claims.

Coupon-mad

If it proceeds and both claims go back to court then I think I’m in trouble and likely not to win. 

Why? Did he say so and his thinking?

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

If it proceeds and both claims go back to court then I think I’m in trouble and likely not to win. 

Why? Did he say so and his thinking?

No he didn’t, just my gut feeling from the hearing. A little disappointed he didn’t just throw both claims out there and then, because when I think about it there is no possible good enough reason why they didn’t consolidate both. But I guess he has to give them a chance to explain.

Cp100

It’s also worth mentioning for anyone that comes across this thread that quoting the Henderson case definitely helped because the judge asked about me mentioning cause of action estoppel and if I was a lawyer or something. 

He didn’t even seem to know about it himself. But he did look into it and I think that’s what made his mind up as he quoted it when he made the decision to say both claims need to be consolidated.