UKPC / DCB Legal

IloveElephants

Fruitcake said:

Just to be certain, you do not fill out an N180 if it is sent to you by the claimant because they will part fill it in with details that are detrimental to your case.

Only fill out the form if it came from the CCBC, or download one, fill it in, then add your signature (print, sign, scan, return)

Thanks Fruitcake, yes I agree, I had to check very carefully if the letter did in fact come from Northampton business centre or the claimant, when I emailed Northampton they confirmed the court sent the questionnaire N180 as the claimant last minute decided to respond. Thank you.

IloveElephants

Update ***********   I have emailed my N180 form and selected the court I would like it to be in. 

IloveElephants

Hi, just a quick question is the small claims mediation service and small claims track the same thing? Thank you

Umkomaas

No. Try Google. 

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

No. Try Google. 

Hi Umkomaas, 

I see the difference, The mediation service is free and helps resolve money disputes without the need for a court hearing, reason I asked is because on the N180 form in A1 I ticked NO. 

A1 = Say NO to mediation (they want the whole amount, you want to pay them nothing, so no scope for mediation. This will not go against you). Mediation is run by a commercial company on behalf of the courts and their success is measured by how many cases are kept out of court. They are not interested in the merits of the case, only whether you will pay or not. So say No.

Umkomaas

So there you go!

Coupon-mad

 The mediation service is free and helps resolve money disputes.

They don't - their so-called Mediators are clueless about law, and parking issues, and whether a claim has any merit, and they just bully defendants to settle.  Which is why you (correctly) ticked 'no'!

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

 The mediation service is free and helps resolve money disputes.

They don't - their so-called Mediators are clueless about law, and parking issues, and whether a claim has any merit, and they just bully defendants to settle.  Which is why you (correctly) ticked 'no'!

Thanks for clarifying Coupon-mad.

IloveElephants

Hi Everyone, 

I have still not received a reply for a hearing date yet, the court said they have received my N180 but because of large volumes they have not actioned it yet.

So I have put together my Witness Statement with images which I will upload and have to number. Apologies in advance for my errors, but I will keep trying to make it clear and concise. Thank you so much everyone. 

WITNESS STATEMENT – Mr John Smith

1. Preliminary

1.1 I John Smith am the Registered Keeper in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.


1.3 The claim refers to an incident involving vehicle (Reg number) on 1st July 2018 at the location of (Add location).
 
1.4 I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Defence already submitted.


2. Sequence of Events

2.1 On 1st /07/2018 the defendant parked vehicle XXXXX in the car park park at (location)

 

2.2 The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations and was parked safely without obstructing or obscuring any vehicular traffic.

2.3 The vehicle was parked in front of a signage board giving the driver the impression this is a legitimate parking bay as the parking board says members parking only 2 hours maximum stay (see photo) had this not been a legitimate parking bay the board should have said no parking in front and made clear park only in marked bays which this carpark never displayed.

2.4 In no way was the floor painted or marked saying no parking or out of bounds.

2.5 Next to the defendant’s vehicle (see photo) is another vehicle parked to its right-hand side and when the defendant returned to the vehicle another vehicle parked to his left hand side

2.4 In January 2022, the defendant received correspondence from County court business centre with limited time to reply to the claim form. This was the first communication the defendant had received on the matter. The defendant requested a SAR from the claimant at this point. The contravention stated Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.   2.5 Due to the lack of any correspondence from DCB LEGAL Ltd and the fact that notice was not ‘given’ they have clearly failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. 
2.6 The Claimant has pursued an entirely unreasonable and vexatious process designed to deny any reasonable opportunity for explanation or appeal process, which has led to the Court action now. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the Small Claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demand against motorists is not something the Court should be seen to support.

2.7 See photos, the carpark has no clear signage or ground markings suggesting which bays are available to park on 2.8 The carpark is poorly maintained with lack of signage and markings, see image and screenshots of reviews from users confirming lack of maintenance of carpark. 2.9 There are no road markings, such as red lines, adjacent to this area to indicate this is not a parking bay. See Exhibit HP2

3.0 The area in question is in common usage as a parking bay.  I have witnesses numerous vehicles using this space, to demonstrate it is in common use as a parking bay. See Exhibit HP2

4. No Grace Period


5. Inadequate Signage

5.1 On entering the claimant did not see any signage from the vehicle clearly indicating the parking restricted areas. I believe that in the case of “Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest” the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they have not seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no signage directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle when parking, as in the case here. See Exhibit HP3, Exhibit HP3b

5.2 The lack of signage and faded white markings in (location) were not present. A key factor in the case of “ParkingEye vs Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. See photo.

5.3 The signage does state that “Members parking only 2 hours maximum stay”. If the area where the defendant parked was marked on the ground and opposite wall suggesting out of bounds area that is the defendants understanding of an area not to park therefore the defendant had parked in anything other than a parking bay. The defendant had parked in front of a sign which would indicate that is a bay and is part of the parking area.

5.4 Upon later investigation, I believe the signage and operating practice of the Claimant in use at (Location) fails the Claimant’s own accredited parking operator scheme (The Independent Parking Committee (IPC)), on the basis that the signage on entering the site “should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land” and include a very large “P” to alert the motorist to the fact that the signage relates to parking restrictions. There is no “P”, however sized, on the signage in use. See Exhibit HP 7

5.5 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small. This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted directly opposite where the defendant parked gives the impression this is a parking bay.
5.6 Having visited the site recently I have noted that the signage both at the entry (add location) and in place around the location have changed since 9th May 2018. There is additional and revised wording and images. It is my belief that this is an attempt to redress the deficiencies and ambiguous nature of the previous signage.

5.7 The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The fact that there is no signage around this area and that it is known that other motorists use this area as a legitimate parking bay (see Exhibit HP2), I would question that the Claimant is deliberately obscuring this fact to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain.

6 Declaration

I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature

Date  

IloveElephants

See the images above, the last 2 images is where my vehicle was parked opposite the signage board saying "2 hours parking"