DCB Legal & UKPC - Remnant PCN

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks KeithP - makes perfect sense now!

Not really sure with their email, but the overall allegation made fall into the same reason as before from my old post in 2016, hence why when CM made the comment about Arnold v Westminster and Henderson v Henderson, and that the claim is “estopped under cause of action estoppel”, I thought this might be the silver bullet for winning this!

There is no Pay&Display machine where I lived as it was a privately owned land, which used UKPC as the beneficiary to issue the invoices.

It all seems quiet at the moment with DCB Legal, possibly squirming at the thought of another lost case! Though, I’m ready to fight back in-case they reply and say they’re still proceeding with it…

What’s your thoughts on the other comments / questions from my previous post?

Thanks,
IMT

IndigoMondayToyota

Good morning all.

Just another short update.

- Today is when the 30 days “on-hold” finishes, and I still haven’t heard anything back from DCBLegal.

They did say from their last email that “After the 30 day period the matter will proceed as normal.”

Still no word back from them after I’d messaged about the claim being estopped under cause of action estoppel.

- Unfortunately I wasn’t able to locate any of my old documents/letters pertaining to the invoice.

- Also, nothing back from MP’s…

- Finally, the emails from the HA were less than satisfactory. Basically a no-chance, as the circumstances (extra car, not parked in the allocated marked bays) meant the invoice was valid to issue out by UKPC…

What are likely to be the next steps? Court claim, right…?

Is there anything else I can do to prevent it from getting to that point? Or am I just a sitting duck for the time being?

Thanks,
IMT

Redx

I suspect that it's the latter , unless you took out a costly injunction or similar !!

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks RedX. Pretty much now a waiting game

In the meantime…*blows the dust off boxing gloves*

Coupon-mad

Or do what I suggested here (we hope you are reading other threads?  We read every new post, every day):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6302896/bw-legal-letter-of-claim-help-please

IndigoMondayToyota

Thank you, CM.

I will admit I haven’t been as active since my original post (which I apologise for), though reading up on the post you linked, and the fact that CCBC is likely to come through, I’ll be catching myself up on several of the recent posts/updates.

Thanks,
IMT

IndigoMondayToyota

Just a quick one, regarding your linked comment above, the part below isn’t relevant in my case (as it wasn’t a PDT):

“Secondly, the IPC Code of Practice, in common with the entire parking industry, mandates a 'minimum ten minute' grace period.

It is not clear from any evidence seen that the vehicle remained parked after that period of grace (substantially, or at all)…”

Should this still be included in my follow-up email to DCBLegal?

Thanks in advance,
IMT

Coupon-mad

You just write whatever is relevant to your case and if 'grace periods' aren't, then that's not what you write.

It's not meant to be a template, it's a heads up to push them about the signs, and exposing the lack of ADR on offer and to set out your position.

The idea is to show this comms later in evidence to show you tried in the pre-action phase to narrow the issues but they didn't, and refused ADR despite the courts expecting it.

IndigoMondayToyota

Lovely stuff, that’s clarified and explained things for me - thanks CM.

Thinking about it now, I think the matter of the ‘grace period’ is relevant in that, how would the parking operator have known that I was a resident where the vehicle was parked - I could’ve been there various reasons.

Though also, if this goes to court and the information is put to a Judge, they’ll have seen that I was a resident where the vehicle was registered to, and maybe also see that they’ve issued several tickets before (which failed to reach court hearing stage)? If it’s brought up though…so not sure if this is relevant, but thought I’d mention it anyway to yourselves in-case.

So can the talking points about parking operator / self-ticketer taking the photographs of the vehicle still be applied?

I am unable to think of any other arguments I can use other than the sign alleging a breach of contract if “failure to comply…” between a registered keeper and UKPC.

Thanks,
IMT

Coupon-mad

As you were a resident, isn't your case that you were permitted under your lease to park, or at least that it created no 'relevant obligation' to display a permit?

As such, UKPC were offering nothing of value to you and so there was no consideration and the elements of a contract were not met.  You had primacy of contract and a right ir easement to park anyway.