Yet another UKPC / DCB Legal LTD - WS Bundle

aphex007

Umkomaas said:

aphex007 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You can certainly re-word it but don't lose the point altogether.

I'm not sure I fully follow you?

Don't erase the entire signage section.  Signage deficiency is probably the most successful winning point at court. The signage, after all, is the 'contract' between PPC and motorist.  If it's deficient, or even missing, then say so! 

Thanks @Umkomaas and I have already definitely stated the signage is missing on the road I was parked on in my defence posted on the 4th Jan.

I'm now just a bit unsure about the references' of signage in the template and a paragraph I removed from my draft after comments from @Jenni_D and @Le_Kirk ?

Le_Kirk

Referring to my post here 7 January at 3:23PM I think it is quite clear what you need: -
If there were NO signs, you put that in your defence - then you can explain in your witness statement (WS) that you have since investigated, on foot, and there are NO signs at all anywhere in the car park (parking area) and here are photographs as evidence.
If there were signs in the area where you parked and they were unreadable (for whatever reason) then you say that and you can expand upon it in WS with evidence.
In my opinion, you should not confuse the issue by talking about signs that were not in the area where you parked.

Redx

I agree with the above , clarify to avoid awkward questions ! Don't allow an in by the opposition , so better to clarify the truth now , to avoid being questioned about a poor choice of words , by making it crystal clear

aphex007

Le_Kirk said:

Referring to my post here 7 January at 3:23PM I think it is quite clear what you need: -
If there were NO signs, you put that in your defence - then you can explain in your witness statement (WS) that you have since investigated, on foot, and there are NO signs at all anywhere in the car park (parking area) and here are photographs as evidence.
If there were signs in the area where you parked and they were unreadable (for whatever reason) then you say that and you can expand upon it in WS with evidence.
In my opinion, you should not confuse the issue by talking about signs that were not in the area where you parked.

Thanks again to you both @Le_Kirk  @Redx.  But to make it crystal clear to "me" I'm interpreting it is best to leave my draft defence paragraphs as they are (reposted again below), but definitely leave all the other defence template paragraphs as they are, even though they mention signage, but because I'm potentially working on the basis of the SAR photo I received of "A" UKPC sign that I have obviously seen from the photo?  I hope that makes sense?  Or have I completely misunderstood you both?

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

Le_Kirk

You have referred to signage in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 and, in my opinion, that is sufficient to allow you to expand in the WS.

Jenni_D

"In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present, "..... /the template point re. signage

???

aphex007

Jenni_D said:

"In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present, "..... /the template point re. signage

???

@Jenni_D meaning the best of both worlds scenario for the future WS, yes?

Redx

Le_Kirk said:

You have referred to signage in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 and, in my opinion, that is sufficient to allow you to expand in the WS.

I agree , I wouldn't be referring to any photos in a SAR , nor any signs on adjacent roads or other locations , the paragraphs above deal with where the vehicle was parked and the road itself , so are sufficient in my view. Don't add doors in for the opposition to open , like SAR photos or other roads nearby. Lord Dennings red hand rule should mean that signs are seen at the location itself , preferably without leaving the vehicle !

The signs form the contract , no signs equals no contract , meaning no case to answer , IMHO

Save any querying of exhibits for the WS , same for any stories

aphex007

Redx said:

Le_Kirk said:

You have referred to signage in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 and, in my opinion, that is sufficient to allow you to expand in the WS.

I agree , I wouldn't be referring to any photos in a SAR , nor any signs on adjacent roads or other locations , the paragraphs above deal with where the vehicle was parked and the road itself , so are sufficient in my view. Don't add doors in for the opposition to open , like SAR photos or other roads nearby. Lord Dennings red hand rule should mean that signs are seen at the location itself , preferably without leaving the vehicle !

The signs form the contract , no signs equals no contract , meaning no case to answer , IMHO

Save any querying of exhibits for the WS , same for any stories

Thanks @Redx for the further comments and all makes sense.  I won't be changing my 4, 5 and 6 and I was only referring to the SAR photo in relation to signage aspects in the unaltered template 4 to 18 (I know I have to alter the numbering etc).

Jenni_D

aphex007 said:

Jenni_D said:

"In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present, "..... /the template point re. signage

???

@Jenni_D meaning the best of both worlds scenario for the future WS, yes?

Yes ... adjust the template signage point to give you an opening. Whilst you're alleging there was NO signage, the "in the alternative" phrase is legal(-ish) speak to allow you to make further allegations.