Yet another UKPC / DCB Legal LTD - WS Bundle

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

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].

OK thanks, this has been removed.  Is this now looking decent for the Defence?  Is there anything else I should be modifying/removing/adding?  I personally cannot think of anything else at the moment.  However due the the comments regarding the low quality/bad UKPC SAR photos and there being no photo of any sign on the road and/or near my car, I'm somewhat tempted to remove #6 or would that be a mistake?

Does the work car park being "free/no payment required" have any relevance and should this fact be added to #3?

Coupon-mad

I would remove #6 as if adds nothing useful.

The car park being free is not relevant.  So was the car park in ParkingEye v Beavis.

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

I would remove #6 as if adds nothing useful.

The car park being free is not relevant.  So was the car park in ParkingEye v Beavis.

Thanks again and for the clarification of ParkingEye v Beavis being a free car park.  I assume it would be allowed to add old version #6 into the WS and expand further with photo evidence and would then be beneficial at that stage?

OK done, new version:

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.  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

Coupon-mad

That looks fine.

To #3, would it be true to add something like:

'This approach road was wide. Parking at the kerb caused no obstruction nor trespass and this area was in common usage by authorised employees for overflow parking for many years without penalty, from the Defendant's recollection.   There was nothing to suggest this informal arrangement had changed'.

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

That looks fine.

To #3, would it be true to add something like:

'This approach road was wide. Parking at the kerb caused no obstruction nor trespass and this area was in common usage by authorised employees for overflow parking for many years without penalty, from the Defendant's recollection.   There was nothing to suggest this informal arrangement had changed'.

Thanks.  I would say a normal size road but as my original post stated only two wheels where "just" on the roadway so as to not cause obstruction.  I hope this isn't frowned upon regarding pedestrian access though? (but I don't believe this is in question), but there is still the ability for pedestrians to walk past the car on the pathway.  I would guess 99% of employees drive to this work location, so not much use of pathways.

Yes it is commonly used by authorised employees for overflow at the time of the event and years before and in fact still is to this day.

Coupon-mad

So re-write it!

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

So re-write it!

OK done, new v6:

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.  This approach road was wide.  Parking at the kerb caused no obstruction nor trespass and this area was in common usage by authorised employees for overflow for many years without penalty, from the Defendant's recollection.  There was nothing to suggest this informal arrangement had changed.

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.  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

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, once you've added the rest of the template defence and signed, dated and emailed it off to the CCBC.

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine, once you've added the rest of the template defence and signed, dated and emailed it off to the CCBC.

Thanks again Coupon-mad.  One thing is niggling me regarding the template defence paragraphs.  The ones that are referring to incoherent signage etc.  In my case there is no signage on the road I was parked on, so how would that apply or be relevant in my case?  Or should they remain in the Defence by way of default as the PPC are referring to the signs in the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form and will continue to do so through the whole process?

Redx

aphex007 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine, once you've added the rest of the template defence and signed, dated and emailed it off to the CCBC.

Thanks again Coupon-mad.  One thing is niggling me regarding the template defence paragraphs.  The ones that are referring to incoherent signage etc.  In my case there is no signage on the road I was parked on, so how would that apply or be relevant in my case?  Or should they remain in the Defence by way of default as the PPC are referring to the signs in the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form and will continue to do so through the whole process?

The latter , your case starts with your Witness statement Plus exhibits plus summary costs assessment in several months time

The defence template has doors that are ajar , the WS opens the doors to the TARDIS inside