UKPC - DCBL County court claim

fight_UKPC

Le_Kirk said:

Regarding your paragraph 5, this is on the signs containing the terms and conditions and everybody queries it BUT by parking you are deemed to have seen and read the T&Cs.  Could just take it out.

Thanks I've taken that out. 

Coupon-mad said:

Add in a line saying there was a verbal contract and permission to park there and the Defendant relied on that agreement which was made face to face and overrides signage on the day of a University event, when parking rules are normally more flexible or suspended.

Thanks CM, I've added that line however I don't feel the flexible or suspended bit applies to me as it was a normal public car park I used to park for work. 

Fruitcake said:

Also mention the Jopson vs Homeguard case where the judge stated that loading and unloading is not parking. Paras 19 and 20 of that judgement refer. This was an appeal court case so is persuasive on the lower courts.

And I've added in the Jopson reference. Thank You @Fruitcake

Here's how it looks now. I've broken up what became quite a lengthy paragraph in to two, now para 4 and 5.

If all is good and I send it now, it won't be acknowledged until wednesday. is it sensible to have delivery and read receipts on? or does the sending day supersede that?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3.     It is denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant. 

4.   The defendant, at all material times, used this car park for work purposes whilst in employment at the local university, Birmingham City University (BCU). The day in question was a key event in the calendar so the defendant remembers the reasons for parking there on a weekend.

5.    The defendant avers that a conversation with the parking attendant took place to seek permission to park in the position documented by the Private Parking Company (PCC), to unload, this constitutes to a verbal contract and permission to park there, and the Defendant relied on that agreement which was made face to face and overrides signage on the day of the University event. The defendant graciously refers the court to the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] paras 19 and 20, where the judge states that loading and unloading is not parking.

6.    It is denied the defendants vehicle was parked in breach of any such alleged terms provided by signs. The defendant avers that from images provided by the PCC, that insufficient signage was present for any such contract to be breached. The defendant asserts that this amounts to forbidding signage, and to that end, no offer, consideration, nor acceptance, and therefore no contract could be formed. 

7.     The defendant avers that there was no sign of the alleged PCN on returning to the vehicle, this is a breach to the claimant’s trade association and a breach of the PoFA 2012, schedule 4 regulations. The defendant applied to the claimants Data protection officer (DPO) to request information held pertaining to the particulars of the claim (POC). On receiving the documentation, all dating back to 2016, the claimant had been sending correspondence to the defendant’s previous address.

TOAIA

Coupon-mad

'PCC' is not the right acronym.  And I would just replace it with 'The Claimant' each time.

fight_UKPC

Coupon-mad said:

'PCC' is not the right acronym.  And I would just replace it with 'The Claimant' each time.

Thanks @Coupon-mad

Done, would you say I'm good to send?

Le_Kirk

5.    The defendant avers that a conversation with the parking attendant took place to seek permission to park in the position documented by the Private Parking Company (PCC), to unload, this constitutes to a verbal contract and permission to park there, and the Defendant relied on that agreement which was made face to face and overrides signage on the day of the University event. The defendant graciously refers the court to the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] paras 19 and 20, where the judge states that loading and unloading is not parking.

Would it just be "constitutes a verbal contract"?

Coupon-mad

Yes, not 'to'.

fight_UKPC

So today I’ve received an email from DCBL asking I want a without prejudice conversion to discuss settlement. 

Should I ignore or reply and see what they want? 

Any advice on how to word such a reply, if indeed one is required? 

patient_dream

fight_UKPC said:

So today I’ve received an email from DCBL asking I want a without prejudice conversion to discuss settlement. 

Should I ignore or reply and see what they want? 

Any advice on how to word such a reply, if indeed one is required? 

Normally this means that they know they don't have a case and it's a last ditch attempt to grab money.

They could be ready to discontinue .... stick to your guns

Coupon-mad

Ignore that entirely.

fight_UKPC

Just a quick brevity check. DCBL finally came back a few ago with the email saying they were going to proceed and sent their DQ. I've sent mine back to them via email and emailed to CCBCDAQ. I've heard nothing from either and today is the day it needed to be with them. MCOL hasn't updated and I've only got auto replies from from DCBL and CCBC. Should I be worried?

Coupon-mad

Yes, if you put a 'D' in that email address as you did above!  But if you got an acknowledgement then you can't have done it wrong.

Why not re-forward the whole email to the CCBC during working hours tomorrow morning and ask why MCOL has not been updated?