Yet another UKPC / DCB Legal LTD - WS Bundle

Coupon-mad

Post it again and more will look. I'm not seeing any link on this page so haven't looked.

Many of us never have time to trawl back through a thread. We whizz through every new post, glance and go and don't always post, unless there is an obvious new link or posted wording right here asking for critique.

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

Post it again and more will look. I'm not seeing any link on this page so haven't looked.

Many of us never have time to trawl back through a thread. We whizz through every new post, glance and go and don't always post, unless there is an obvious new link or posted wording right here asking for critique.

OK point taken, here you go (this is v2 with Le_Kirk's and part of 105grandad's suggestion (last sentence of para 21 removed)):

Draft WS Bundle (redacted) v2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/znreko7lihl821x/Draft_Witness_Bundle_(redacted)_v2.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Looks good.  As this is not an IPC firm I would remove the final 'e.g.' sentence about the IAS from #25.  No need to replace it with stats about POPLA as they are not nearly as damning.

Very good photo evidence!

To the point about the new DLUHC Code of Practice, because (as you will know if you've been reading other posts this week on the forum) the Code is temporarily withdrawn for yet another Public Consultation and a proper Impact Assessment, you could add:

Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice, the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale.  Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaim race to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track.

aphex007

Thanks for looking @Coupon-mad I've removed the end sentence from #25.

Regarding the photo evidence my initial thoughts where are there too many!  But as my main point is based around no signage/no contract, I thought it was justified.

Yes I noticed the https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice does show  "This guidance was withdrawn on 7 June 2022".  So I was going to query this.

Thanks for the additional wording that's brilliant 👍!  So If I've got the correct section to put it after?  It now reads (following on from #27) the following:

27.      My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice. 

28.      Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice (as per paragraph 27), the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale.  Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaim race to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track.

Coupon-mad

Yep, perfect example.

Can you show your whole WS again here as I think we need to use that wording and could use yours as a full example!

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, perfect example.

Can you show your whole WS again here as I think we need to use that wording and could use yours as a full example!

Sure yes! 👍  Bear in mind though wording throughout has been changed with entries such as "alleged signage".  So worth pointing out, as people would need to change to their circumstances appropriately!

Before I edit a newer version though I referred a few pages back (page 13) to "CPR 44.11 - further costs" that may/or not be allowed and I certainly do not want to annoy the Judge over this aspect?  I'm also unsure about my wording in regards to this, in what is now paragraph #41 and/or if it is even appropriate?  Any thoughts?


See below:

CPR 44.11 - further costs

41. I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which also covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11).   In support of that argument, I remind the court that the Claimants representative did not have reasonable cause to issue the PCN (on my windscreen), as there were no Claimant signs clearly and prominently displayed on the approach road to my workplace car park, upon which my vehicle was parked.  The very words “clearly and prominently displayed” are actually taken from the Claimants PCN details in relation to the Claimants signs (as to how they should be).  It is denied that signage exists on this road; therefore it is denied I am in breach of terms and conditions.  Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action, but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery.

Coupon-mad

As always it is up to you whether you go for the jugular on costs, or are happy to win and ask for £95 fixed witness costs (for loss of leave or salary/income) and any travel if the hearing is in person.

Bottom line is, you don't have to include that full wording and can just ask for the basic fixed costs.

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

As always it is up to you whether you go for the jugular on costs, or are happy to win and ask for £95 fixed witness costs (for loss of leave or salary/income) and any travel if the hearing is in person.

Bottom line is, you don't have to include that full wording and can just ask for the basic fixed costs.

But it wouldn't be frowned upon by the Judge in any way or be detrimental to the case would it?  Or is that to difficult to answer as every Judge is different?

Coupon-mad

Asking for normal costs is perfectly OK.  You are entitled to them if you win.

Not all Judges allow them but they won't be annoyed, and you do have to ask at the end, and have drawn attention to them in a costs assessment in advance. So this is doing everything by the book.

aphex007

@Coupon-mad as requested updated version:

Draft WS Bundle (redacted) v3
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cd5oqk90qga96p9/Draft_Witness_Bundle_(redacted)_v3.pdf?dl=0

If anyone else has time to take look (before I have to submit in the next few days), I'm obviously still happy for further recommendations if deemed necessary?