Yet another UKPC / DCB Legal LTD - WS Bundle

aphex007

patient_dream said:

aphex007 said:

UKPC photo:

Are you happy that this picture is from the same car park ?

If that is what they rely on, make sure you take a magnifier with you so the judge can read it

@patient_dream There are No UKPC signs in the car park and No UKPC signs on the road where I was parked.

The judge will not be able to read the signs smaller print even with a magnifier i.e. anything below "Terms Of Parking Apply At All Times" as it is completely illegible even when you zoom in!

patient_dream

aphex007 said:

patient_dream said:

aphex007 said:

UKPC photo:

Are you happy that this picture is from the same car park ?

If that is what they rely on, make sure you take a magnifier with you so the judge can read it

@patient_dream There are No UKPC signs in the car park and No UKPC signs on the road where I was parked.

The judge will not be able to read the signs smaller print even with a magnifier i.e. anything below "Terms Of Parking Apply At All Times" as it is completely illegible even when you zoom in!

I assume you have taken pictures where there are no parking signs. Apart from the sign they sent, are their pictures of the car in the no sign area, ?

The magnifier by the way is a tongue in cheek way of saying the judge will not be able to read it.

So, UKPC think the sign is in an area where there are no signs ?

UKPC place their signs well above the vision of most people and that picture will have been taken by the UKPC goon at ground level hence the angle of the picture.

I expect as DCBL are just robo claimers, they will have no idea that UKPC are tendering signs that were not in that area.  

aphex007

patient_dream said:

aphex007 said:

patient_dream said:

aphex007 said:

UKPC photo:

Are you happy that this picture is from the same car park ?

If that is what they rely on, make sure you take a magnifier with you so the judge can read it

@patient_dream There are No UKPC signs in the car park and No UKPC signs on the road where I was parked.

The judge will not be able to read the signs smaller print even with a magnifier i.e. anything below "Terms Of Parking Apply At All Times" as it is completely illegible even when you zoom in!

I assume you have taken pictures where there are no parking signs. Apart from the sign they sent, are their pictures of the car in the no sign area, ?

The magnifier by the way is a tongue in cheek way of saying the judge will not be able to read it.

So, UKPC think the sign is in an area where there are no signs ?

UKPC place their signs well above the vision of most people and that picture will have been taken by the UKPC goon at ground level hence the angle of the picture.

I expect as DCBL are just robo claimers, they will have no idea that UKPC are tendering signs that were not in that area.  

Yes I have my own photos of the road clearly showing no UKPC signage.  There is some more low quality photos of the car, front and back (from UKPC), again clearly showing no evidence of any parking signage whatsoever.  I doubt I will post those though........

As you can tell I did think you were being serious about bringing a magnifier to court! 

I have no idea what UKPC think about the locations of their signs, but I assume they think what you said?  Yes because of the angle of the UKPC photo I think this shows the sign is at a high height.

Coupon-mad

UKPC's photo evidence of signage is always so poor (either blurry or stupidly high, as here) that I would always look to use their dreadful photos in POPLA appeals and witness statements.

Hoist by their own petard.

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

UKPC's photo evidence of signage is always so poor (either blurry or stupidly high, as here) that I would always look to use their dreadful photos in POPLA appeals and witness statements.

Hoist by their own petard.

Just to clarify I know I'm not at WS stage but at what point should I use my own clear photos in the WS?  I assume they should ONLY be used when it supports my defence against the PPC?  Or am I wrong on that?

Coupon-mad

at what point should I use my own clear photos in the WS?

Not at all, unless you mean clear photos showing no visible sign.  I would never show a close up of a sign.

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

at what point should I use my own clear photos in the WS?

Not at all, unless you mean clear photos showing no visible sign.  I would never show a close up of a sign.

Yes, I mean exactly that, clear photos showing no visible signs and thanks for confirming regarding not using sign close ups as well!

aphex007

Changes made and bold and strikethrough wording now removed.  Does the work car park being "free/no payment required" have any relevance and should this fact be added to #3?

DEFENCE DRAFT BELOW

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

3.  In November 2017 the Defendants work car park was at full capacity;  therefore the Defendant parked the car on the unmarked roadway leading into the car park.

4.  The Defendant did not see any contractual signage on either side of the road that the vehicle was parked on.  After receiving the PCN the defendant carried out research on foot and confirmed there is no such signage on this road in question. Therefore the Defendant did not enter into any contract and was not bound by any contractual terms.

5.  The Defendant did not see any kerb side double or single yellow lines or such lines of any colour on either side of the kerbs entire stretch of the road that the vehicle was parked upon.   After receiving the PCN the defendant carried out research on foot and confirmed there is no such described kerb side lines on this road.  Thus was not alerted to any parking restrictions for the road in question.

6.  The Claimants sparse signage on other adjoining roads or roundabouts is placed at such a height that the Defendant did not see them whilst driving the vehicle through these roads.  This is due to the fact that the level is above the height of the Defendant's vehicle roof.  Even if the signage was at the correct height for visibility, it is placed sideways and not facing in the direction of travel on the road [whilst the Defendant drives too or from their place of work];  therefore the Defendant would still have been unable to read the Claimants signage and thus did not enter into any contract and was not bound by any contractual terms.

7.  It is the Defendant’s position that this amounts to serial predatory ticketing of employees and visitors of the companies located at this location.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that, at the time of the parking event the signage was evident, correct and clearly visible on this road in question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF DEFENCE DRAFT

patient_dream

aphex007 said:

patient_dream said:

aphex007 said:

patient_dream said:

aphex007 said:

UKPC photo:

Are you happy that this picture is from the same car park ?

If that is what they rely on, make sure you take a magnifier with you so the judge can read it

@patient_dream There are No UKPC signs in the car park and No UKPC signs on the road where I was parked.

The judge will not be able to read the signs smaller print even with a magnifier i.e. anything below "Terms Of Parking Apply At All Times" as it is completely illegible even when you zoom in!

I assume you have taken pictures where there are no parking signs. Apart from the sign they sent, are their pictures of the car in the no sign area, ?

The magnifier by the way is a tongue in cheek way of saying the judge will not be able to read it.

So, UKPC think the sign is in an area where there are no signs ?

UKPC place their signs well above the vision of most people and that picture will have been taken by the UKPC goon at ground level hence the angle of the picture.

I expect as DCBL are just robo claimers, they will have no idea that UKPC are tendering signs that were not in that area.  

Yes I have my own photos of the road clearly showing no UKPC signage.  There is some more low quality photos of the car, front and back (from UKPC), again clearly showing no evidence of any parking signage whatsoever.  I doubt I will post those though........

As you can tell I did think you were being serious about bringing a magnifier to court! 

I have no idea what UKPC think about the locations of their signs, but I assume they think what you said?  Yes because of the angle of the UKPC photo I think this shows the sign is at a high height.

Step back with UKPC where they used and abused another legal called CST Law in Scotland. Scottish MP's got involved. The UKPC rubbish stopped and CST were referred to the SRA.

DCBL are heading the same way in their quest to collect monopoly money

You must talk to your MP who should question DCBL and if DCBL fail, then it's a clear case of your MP reporting them to the SRA

Coupon-mad

Remove this commentary as it adds nothing. The Judge knows this:

This led to the Claimant [UK Parking Control Limited] issuing a PCN of £100.  In December 2021 DCB Legal LTD acting on behalf of the Claimant issued a Claim Form.  Total amount of £3xx.xx [inclusive of £35 court fee and £50 Legal representative’s costs].