UKPC / DCB Legal

IloveElephants

KeithP said:

Why is that paragraph 5.9 included under the heading "Inadequate Signage"?

Your numbering jumps from paragraph 5.6 to 5.9.
Where are paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8?


Re: your paragraph 5.9.
One email that you received on 21st June (and showed us on 22nd June) offered a settlement.

That email was headed...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Do you know what that means?
As always, google has the answer.


Your paragraph 3.0 includes the phrase "I have witnesses numerous vehicles using this space...".
What does that mean?


You need to expand your paragraph 2.5 to explain exactly why or how the claim doesn't meet POFA requirements and state what the consequences of that failure are. Exhibits of your evidence showing that failure are needed too.

HI Keith, thank you so much for taking the time out to help me with this. Great points. I truly appreciate your kindness.


Why is that paragraph 5.9 included under the heading "Inadequate Signage"?

I have removed it, it should not have been there on its own. I agreee


Your numbering jumps from paragraph 5.6 to 5.9.
Where are paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8?
I have corrected my numbering, please see below, thank you.


Re: your paragraph 5.9.
One email that you received on 21st June (and showed us on 22nd June) offered a settlement.
Yes both emails I received from dcbl were received on the 22nd June. I have also made screenshots of them 


That email was headed...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Do you know what that means?
As always, google has the answer.

It means if I pay these bullies they will not make judgement and proceed with court action. 



Your paragraph 3.0 includes the phrase "I have witnesses numerous vehicles using this space...".
What does that mean?
I will delete this paragraph. 


You need to expand your paragraph 2.5 to explain exactly why or how the claim doesn't meet POFA requirements and state what the consequences of that failure are. Exhibits of your evidence showing that failure are needed too.

I am admitting I am the driver and keeper. The claim dosent meet POFA requirements 

The entrance signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces,

especially in relation to the sum of the parking charge itself. The bay markings

are mostly faded and covered by dirt in many places, the carpark is poorly maintained which makes them barely

visible. (See photo exhibit)

In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it

discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking

charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge.

POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a)

the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements

prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes

of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or

more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)

are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the

relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a

reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the

signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular

site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012,

I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size with the wording "MEMBERS PARKING ONLY 2 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY" - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e.

the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist

IloveElephants

I can also add the following: As my image shows my vehicle opposite the sign, the sign says in capitals "Members parking 2 hour only 2 hours maximum stay"

I had paid for a day pass to use the sports facilities at this site. 

See image. Had this not been a parking bay it should have been stated "park in marked bays" in bold lettering or say "do not park opposite this sign/out of bounds". 

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that

the persuasive case law is in fact ‘Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] about a driver not seeing the terms and, consequently, she was NOT

deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and

supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen

and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not

consented to -and cannot have 'breached' -an unknown contract because there is no

contract capable of being established.

The driver in that case (who had not seen any

signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact

that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked

as 'private land' and the "Do not park here" signs were obscured/adjacent to the car and could not have

been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking. So, for this appeal, I put this

operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same

lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle

of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance

signs appear from a driver's seat (not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up),

in the same lighting conditions. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car

before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will

not be sufficient to disprove this.

In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it

discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking

charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge.

POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a)

the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements

prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes

of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or

more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)

are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the

relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a

reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the

signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular

site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012,

I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the sum, £

which is illegible in my photographs - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e.

the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist

Umkomaas

I am admitting I am the driver and keeper. The claim dosent meet POFA requirements 

If you're admitting being the driver you can forget (and erase) anything related to PoFA. 

That email was headed...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Do you know what that means?
As always, google has the answer.

It means if I pay these bullies they will not make judgement and proceed with court action. 

Really, is that what Google told you?  I think I'd ask it again.

Trainerman

Umkomaas said:

I am admitting I am the driver and keeper. The claim dosent meet POFA requirements 

If you're admitting being the driver you can forget (and erase) anything related to PoFA. 

That email was headed...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Do you know what that means?
As always, google has the answer.

It means if I pay these bullies they will not make judgement and proceed with court action. 

Really, is that what Google told you?  I think I'd ask it again.

Umkomaas is right. If you are going to use these terms, you have to understand them and use them appropriately

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

I am admitting I am the driver and keeper. The claim dosent meet POFA requirements 

If you're admitting being the driver you can forget (and erase) anything related to PoFA. 

That email was headed...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Do you know what that means?
As always, google has the answer.

It means if I pay these bullies they will not make judgement and proceed with court action. 

Really, is that what Google told you?  I think I'd ask it again.

Hi Umkomaas, thank you so much for taking the time once again to help educate me on this.

WPSATC Means

"without prejudice save as to costs" (WPSATC) means that if the dispute is not resolved and judgment is finally given, then the document can be referred to when costs entitlements are being considered by the court. A WPSATC offer is also known as a Calderbank offer.

• What this means in practical terms is that correspondence marked WPSATC can in principle be used to try to persuade the court that a party has acted reasonably in trying to settle the dispute before a final decision (or another party has been unreasonable in refusing to settle) and so any costs orders should reflect this. There is no guaranteed outcome on costs when making a WPSATC offer, but the court will take it into account at the stage of costs consideration. (Compare the likely effect of a successful Part 36 offer - see below.)

I realise by mentioning this and the 2 emails I received would do me more harm in that case? Can I still mention the part about it being estopped for duplicate pcns? Instead of bringing a single claim. I will not mention the email offer DBCL made to me if it will do me more harm.

IloveElephants

Trainerman said:

Umkomaas said:

I am admitting I am the driver and keeper. The claim dosent meet POFA requirements 

If you're admitting being the driver you can forget (and erase) anything related to PoFA. 

That email was headed...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Do you know what that means?
As always, google has the answer.

It means if I pay these bullies they will not make judgement and proceed with court action. 

Really, is that what Google told you?  I think I'd ask it again.

Umkomaas is right. If you are going to use these terms, you have to understand them and use them appropriately

Trainerman said:

Umkomaas said:

I am admitting I am the driver and keeper. The claim dosent meet POFA requirements 

If you're admitting being the driver you can forget (and erase) anything related to PoFA. 

That email was headed...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Do you know what that means?
As always, google has the answer.

It means if I pay these bullies they will not make judgement and proceed with court action. 

Really, is that what Google told you?  I think I'd ask it again.

Umkomaas is right. If you are going to use these terms, you have to understand them and use them appropriately

Thanks Trainer man, I agree I will remove all reference TO PoFA as I will admit being the driver. 

IloveElephants

Hi Everyone,

Please see my WS with the adjustments and corrections. (Please ignore the formatting and numbering/typos.) This is the draft stage, I just want to make sure my arguments are clear and make sense first. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qqwq64bj7k2pgohga7qfm/WITNESS-STATEMENTworkinprogressversion030722.docx?dl=0&rlkey=bukyuv0uikmx9djj1avemt1i5

Thank you

KeithP

Two paragraphs numbered 2.4.

Didn't read any more. You simply aren't paying attention to detail.

IloveElephants

KeithP said:

Two paragraphs numbered 2.4.

Didn't read any more. You simply aren't paying attention to detail.

Hi Keith,

Thanks for pointing that out, ignore the formatting for now please and numbering, I just want to make sure the content is correct. 

1505grandad

"(Please ignore the formatting and numbering/typos.)"

Does that include:-

"2.8  The IPC’s CoP states that text size must be such that signs are ‘clearly readable’ by a

motorist, I believe that the claimant’s signs do not adhere to this guidance"