Yet another UKPC / DCB Legal LTD - WS Bundle

Le_Kirk

This regularly posted by @1505grandad: -

Hopefully you have read and understood the Template Defence and therefore realise that the existing para 7  in the Template states -  "He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed."

As you now have more than paras 2 and 3 - and therefore have to renumber the subsequent paras - you have altered the reference to point 5 accordingly.

aphex007

Jenni_D said:

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.  

Thanks @Jenni_D.  So I will have to add that additional wording "In the alternative......" in all of the template paragraphs (original numbers) 4 to 18 that mention signage, but apart from the section that is referring to The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (starting from #12) as that signage wording is relating to that case?  Have I got this correct?

aphex007

aphex007 said:

Jenni_D said:

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.  

Thanks @Jenni_D.  So I will have to add that additional wording "In the alternative......" in all of the template paragraphs (original numbers) 4 to 18 that mention signage, but apart from the section that is referring to The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (starting from #12) as that signage wording is relating to that case?  Have I got this correct?

Looking through the template the only point's/paragraph's I think are suitable for adjustment are the following (original template numbers used, to avoid confusion):


ORIGINAL TEMPLATE DEFENCE DRAFT MY ALTERATIONS IN BOLD:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.  In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present The Claimant’s the signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

15.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present, the Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

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

I think #4 is already worded in a manner to be still be correct in my scenario as it is stating "....signage that the Claimant may be relying upon." and again unnecessary for #6 due to existing wording such as "......and prominent signs - which is denied".

Again I appreciate everyone's help on this.  I really need to finalise this tonight I won't have time tomorrow to work on it any further and it needs submitting tomorrow before 4pm.

If anyone thinks differently please advise? and/or if you think good to go for submission after my minor #13 and #15 alterations then also let me know please?

Jenni_D

#15 doesn't need In the alternative  - start it with If the Claimant..... #13 I'd word slightly differently:

13.  In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present the Defendant avers that the signs had vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed

aphex007

Jenni_D said:

#15 doesn't need In the alternative  - start it with If the Claimant..... #13 I'd word slightly differently:

13.  In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present the Defendant avers that the signs had vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed

Brilliant thanks @Jenni_D I've now adjusted.  If nobody else can suggest anything further, I will submit the full Defence tomorrow morning


ORIGINAL TEMPLATE DEFENCE DRAFT ALTERATIONS IN BOLD v2:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.  In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present the Defendant avers that the signs had vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

15.  Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   If the Claimant alleges signage was present, the Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

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

aphex007

OK Defence has been sent to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk.  Is it still the advice to send a copy directly to the Claimant? and if so what is the best email address people have been using for this, for UKPC?

Is it worth emailing the Defence to DCB Legal Ltd as well, or no need?

Jenni_D

If the claim has been filed by DCB Legal on behalf of UKPC then serve your defence on the legal representative - i.e. DCB Legal. (Bearing in mind that you have no obligation to serve the defence, only to file it with the CCBC - it is merely recommended to do so as that might make them decide to cancel the claim more quickly).  

aphex007

Jenni_D said:

If the claim has been filed by DCB Legal on behalf of UKPC then serve your defence on the legal representative - i.e. DCB Legal. (Bearing in mind that you have no obligation to serve the defence, only to file it with the CCBC - it is merely recommended to do so as that might make them decide to cancel the claim more quickly).  

Yes DCB Legal Ltd see photo below:


What is the best current email address to email to?  Should I use a general one or one direct to the Claimant's Legal Rep on the bottom of the form?

Jenni_D

I can't access their site (blocked by company firewall 😂) but have a look at https://dcblegal.co.uk/contact-us/

aphex007

Jenni_D said:

I can't access their site (blocked by company firewall 😂) but have a look at https://dcblegal.co.uk/contact-us/

Yeah I looked at that but it only goes to an online form when you click "DEFENDANT RESPONSE".  I'll do some digging later, i'm sure somebody will comment/advise in a bit?