UKPC / DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

Ignore Lex's worthless offer.

Reply to the other email telling them their client is estopped because UKPC have already filed a claim and failed to include these PCNs of duplicate fact. Tell the sender to have a chat with Lex Owens at the next desk about existing claim number xxxxxxx because clearly the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Suggest that the shiny new team of DCBLegal employees who actually think they are working in 'law' might like to Google 'cause of action estoppel' if DCBLegal's rookie new team of non-legal staff don't understand the issues and don't yet know who and what they are actually working for and what 'roboclaim firm' and 'rogue parking industry' mean, as well as 'extorting money from motorists' (DLUHC phrase by Minister Neil O'Brien MP).

IloveElephants

Thank you Coupon-mad said:

Ignore Lex's worthless offer.

Reply to the other email telling them their client is estopped because UKPC have already filed a claim and failed to include these PCNs of duplicate fact. Tell the sender to have a chat with Lex Owens at the next desk about existing claim number xxxxxxx because clearly the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Suggest that the shiny new team of DCBLegal employees who actually think they are working in 'law' might like to Google 'cause of action estoppel' if DCBLegal's rookie new team of non-legal staff don't understand the issues and don't yet know who and what they are actually working for and what 'roboclaim firm' and 'rogue parking industry' mean, as well as 'extorting money from motorists' (DLUHC phrase by Minister Neil O'Brien MP).

That made me laugh, thank you Coupon-Mad, I will do that and when it comes to my court case I am going to bring this up and mention it in my WS. 

IloveElephants

IloveElephants said:

Thank you Coupon-mad said:

Ignore Lex's worthless offer.

Reply to the other email telling them their client is estopped because UKPC have already filed a claim and failed to include these PCNs of duplicate fact. Tell the sender to have a chat with Lex Owens at the next desk about existing claim number xxxxxxx because clearly the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Suggest that the shiny new team of DCBLegal employees who actually think they are working in 'law' might like to Google 'cause of action estoppel' if DCBLegal's rookie new team of non-legal staff don't understand the issues and don't yet know who and what they are actually working for and what 'roboclaim firm' and 'rogue parking industry' mean, as well as 'extorting money from motorists' (DLUHC phrase by Minister Neil O'Brien MP).

Hi Everyone, quick question, Shall I forward the above email also to the "client" UKPC. I am sure DCB "Legal" have forwarded my reply to them. Thank you everyone. 

Umkomaas

IloveElephants said:

IloveElephants said:

Thank you Coupon-mad said:

Ignore Lex's worthless offer.

Reply to the other email telling them their client is estopped because UKPC have already filed a claim and failed to include these PCNs of duplicate fact. Tell the sender to have a chat with Lex Owens at the next desk about existing claim number xxxxxxx because clearly the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Suggest that the shiny new team of DCBLegal employees who actually think they are working in 'law' might like to Google 'cause of action estoppel' if DCBLegal's rookie new team of non-legal staff don't understand the issues and don't yet know who and what they are actually working for and what 'roboclaim firm' and 'rogue parking industry' mean, as well as 'extorting money from motorists' (DLUHC phrase by Minister Neil O'Brien MP).

Hi Everyone, quick question, Shall I forward the above email also to the "client" UKPC. I am sure DCB "Legal" have forwarded my reply to them. Thank you everyone. 

No detriment in doing so. 

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

IloveElephants said:

IloveElephants said:

Thank you Coupon-mad said:

Ignore Lex's worthless offer.

Reply to the other email telling them their client is estopped because UKPC have already filed a claim and failed to include these PCNs of duplicate fact. Tell the sender to have a chat with Lex Owens at the next desk about existing claim number xxxxxxx because clearly the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Suggest that the shiny new team of DCBLegal employees who actually think they are working in 'law' might like to Google 'cause of action estoppel' if DCBLegal's rookie new team of non-legal staff don't understand the issues and don't yet know who and what they are actually working for and what 'roboclaim firm' and 'rogue parking industry' mean, as well as 'extorting money from motorists' (DLUHC phrase by Minister Neil O'Brien MP).

Hi Everyone, quick question, Shall I forward the above email also to the "client" UKPC. I am sure DCB "Legal" have forwarded my reply to them. Thank you everyone. 

No detriment in doing so. 

Thanks Umkomaas,

IloveElephants

My Letter notice of allocation to the small claims track doesn't mention 14 days to submit the WS before the hearing. my hearing is on the 13th July. It says no later than 4pm on 13th July both parties must send copies of WS and documents to the court. Is this normal? So when is my actual court date or is it on the 13th? How does the court prepare if they receive the WS a day before. 

Thank you 

IloveElephants

Hi Everyone, hope all is well and thank you so much for everyone, on this thread.

Please see below my WS and I welcome feedback.

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.

5.9 On 21st June 2022 DCBLegal and their client Excel parking sent me 2 emails, one for this particular case offering a settlement fee then dismiss court action. The second email was asking for a settlement sum of £240 for another PCN, rather than Excel parking and DCBL legal processing this as a single claim they are now harassing me for multiple claims via email. Excel is estopped because UKPC have already filed a claim and failed to include duplicate PCNs. 

 A quote from Minister Neil O'Brien MP  'roboclaim firm' and 'rogue parking industry', as well as 'extorting money from motorists' (DLUHC phrase by Minister Neil O'Brien MP). 

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

Umkomaas

Despite all the advice you've received, you are still using a Statement of Truth that became obsolete over 2 years ago. Have you blindly copied and pasted large chunks from some other posters WS?

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

Despite all the advice you've received, you are still using a Statement of Truth that became obsolete over 2 years ago. Have you blindly copied and pasted large chunks from some other posters WS?

Hi Ukmomaas, thanks for your reply, no this was my WS that I sent to the court to get to this stage.

My WS will not be much different to the one I sent in May with the added estopped section about the claimant and their client harassing for multiple tickets. 

Umkomaas

Did you use that short Statement of Truth in it?