DCBLegal Letter of Claim - delayed replying

madeamistake789

patient_dream said:

madeamistake789 said:

Hi there,

I have now received the claim form, and I have completed the acknowledgment steps from the newbies thread.

As per the defence draft thread, I am now posting for advice before I send it off. My idea here is to show that the parking restriction was only put in place at some point not long before the ticket was issued. That it has been a free parking area for years, and that the entry sign was obstructed.

The next closest sign does sit under a street lamp, but I believe that the person issuing the ticket had to use flash to get a picture of it. As I don't know this for a fact, I don't know if I should add it or not.

My main defence is still the false admin costs, though.

Could you please upload to here the CLOSE UP picture they sent you.
All UKPC signs are unreadable if you don't have a zoom lens or binoculars

And, the area they cover, is there a front facing sign to warn people ?

The fake admin fee that DCBL apply is a scam which must be pointed out to the court ... it's not an actual defence

DCBL will claim they are allowed to add this because the BPA code of practice says they can.   In reality this is total rubbish as the code of practice is not regulated and the fake add-on is nothing more than cloud dreaming by the BPA and invented by a a BPA board member TO ENABLE MEMBERS TO MAKE MORE MONEY

Here's the picture they sent (I have cropped out the date and location number). That's the size of the image I received after I sent SAR to UKPC. To me, it appears as if a camera flash was used to illuminate the sign, even though there is a street lamp above it.

There is a front-facing sign to warn people, but that was blocked from view by a large lorry, which is also visible in one of the pictures they sent. Lorry and the car facing the camera. The sign is right next to the lorry's cabin. Not sure if you can see much in this picture (I obscured the car, guessing that's the right thing to do). The picture does a good job at depicting the level of darkness on that road, those street lights are really bad.

madeamistake789

Thank you @KeithP for the confirmation of deadlines and other information, much appreciated. I am using the template from this thread and will follow the submission steps outlined by you in the same thread.

Thanks to the others as well for pointing out that the admin fees are not the defence. Apologies for misunderstanding that one. Based on the pictures above and from searching the UKPC threads, I've amended my defence draft to the below:
----

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The location in claim has been used by local residents as a parking spot for a number of years in order to access the facilities of the retail park. Using Google Maps Street View, it can be confirmed that from YEAR and up until July YEAR OF TICKET, there were no parking restrictions in place on PARKING ROAD.

4. The Defendant has used the location at least once a month between YEAR and YEAR, and would normally access the location from ROAD.

5. On the day of the alleged contravention, on DATE, the Defendant arrived at PARKING, as before, from the direction of ROAD before 5.30pm. As can be seen in the pictures provided by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC), the front-facing sign at the entrance to the parking enforcement area was obstructed by a large lorry, thus making it impossible to see the warning sign.

6. After passing the lorry, The Defendant proceeded to park at the first available spot, which was a few spots away from the closest sign. At that time of day, it was already dark outside and poorly lit, as can be seen in the pictures taken by UKPC. From the spot where the Defendant left his car, it is extremely difficult to notice the sign in the dark; it is argued that UKPC neglected to take the necessary steps to ensure all motorists entering the car park were not deceived and able to see their signs clearly and visibly.

7. The Defendant is aware that the closest sign displayed by UKPC within their evidence is placed at a considerable height off the floor, causing extreme difficulty for the sign to be noticed, and even less likely to be read by a motorist. The font size and excessive amount of text make it difficult to read – particularly in a poorly lit area on a dark winter evening.

8. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached the 'terms and conditions of parking' due to the Defendant's honest reliance on previous visits when no parking restrictions were in place, having seen no information whatsoever, to suggest any relevant obligation or relevant contract applied to visitors.

----

Does this look good?

Coupon-mad

Yes, as does your photo, but as the NEWBIES thread 'know what happens when' section says) photos come later and don't go with a defence.

Remove 6 and 7 and keep them for WS stage.

patient_dream

madeamistake789 said:

patient_dream said:

madeamistake789 said:

Hi there,

I have now received the claim form, and I have completed the acknowledgment steps from the newbies thread.

As per the defence draft thread, I am now posting for advice before I send it off. My idea here is to show that the parking restriction was only put in place at some point not long before the ticket was issued. That it has been a free parking area for years, and that the entry sign was obstructed.

The next closest sign does sit under a street lamp, but I believe that the person issuing the ticket had to use flash to get a picture of it. As I don't know this for a fact, I don't know if I should add it or not.

My main defence is still the false admin costs, though.

Could you please upload to here the CLOSE UP picture they sent you.
All UKPC signs are unreadable if you don't have a zoom lens or binoculars

And, the area they cover, is there a front facing sign to warn people ?

The fake admin fee that DCBL apply is a scam which must be pointed out to the court ... it's not an actual defence

DCBL will claim they are allowed to add this because the BPA code of practice says they can.   In reality this is total rubbish as the code of practice is not regulated and the fake add-on is nothing more than cloud dreaming by the BPA and invented by a a BPA board member TO ENABLE MEMBERS TO MAKE MORE MONEY

The UKPC sign is one of the worst I have seen

Even in daylight it is unreadable let alone at night

This is just another UKPC rubbish case

madeamistake789

A final update from me. DCB called me to offer a settlement, which I rejected without any discussion. A week or two after that they informed me that they have discontinued the Court proceedings, and I'm so happy.

A huge thanks to this community for everything!

For anyone who might come across this while looking for answers, please just follow the advice here, read the Newbies thread over and over again, and trust the process.

Coupon-mad

madeamistake789 said:

A final update from me. DCB called me to offer a settlement, which I rejected without any discussion. A week or two after that they informed me that they have discontinued the Court proceedings, and I'm so happy.

A huge thanks to this community for everything!

For anyone who might come across this while looking for answers, please just follow the advice here, read the Newbies thread over and over again, and trust the process.

Yay!  Nicely done re the discontinuance.

Very good news! Discontinuance = a win. 

CALLING @Umkomaas TO ADD YOU TO HIS LIST!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Well done for winning.  And...please don't leave us yet!

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens - anticipated over the Summer.

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers! You have a personal story to tell about the culture of getting a roboclaim 'legal' firm to add a pointless £70 for their own profit, to be let loose to intimidate people.

Umkomaas

CALLING @Umkomaas TO ADD YOU TO HIS LIST!

Got it.  👍