UKPC / DCB Legal

IloveElephants

1505grandad said:

"(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"

Hi Grandad, thanks for your input, I have removed that paragraph 2.8 and cite BPA?

IloveElephants

Hi, Please if anyone could see my WS 

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

If you could mention the errors and what needs to be removed. Thank you. In terms of the template and formatting I can correct that. I just want to make sure it is clear. 

Trainerman

I have only had a quick flick through it, but 2.9 stood out. I think reword it, it does not entirely make sense. Also a heading of 4.3 no grace period, with nothing else there. Is grace period relevant anyway?

IloveElephants

Trainerman said:

I have only had a quick flick through it, but 2.9 stood out. I think reword it, it does not entirely make sense. Also a heading of 4.3 no grace period, with nothing else there. Is grace period relevant anyway?

Hi Trainerman, thank you so much for taking the time to help me. I have reworded it. How does this sound? I am trying to make a point the sign was mounted opposite a space that is not a bay. They should have mounted the board to the right hand side opposite the "valid parking bays". See the image of the black vehicle parked next to me. The sign should have been mounted there instead. 

2.9Furthermore, the sign states "Members parking 2 hour only 2 hours maximum stay"’, in large lettering mounted directly opposite the defendants vehicle. (See photo) This is unclear, if this was not a marked bay the signage should say do not park opposite this sign. The sign should have also been moved to the right hand side of the defendants vehicle to indicate this is a valid parking bay. 

Trainerman

Looks better to me

IloveElephants

Trainerman said:

Looks better to me

Thanks Trainerman, 

I have removed  4.3 no grace period

If anyone else has any other ideas I would be grateful. Thank you

1505grandad

"4.4 On entering the claimant did not see any signage from the vehicle clearly indicating the

parking restricted areas."

Witness statements are written in the first person  -  and you are not the claimant.

I see IPC still stated.

IloveElephants

1505grandad said:

"4.4 On entering the claimant did not see any signage from the vehicle clearly indicating the

parking restricted areas."

Witness statements are written in the first person  -  and you are not the claimant.

I see IPC still stated.

Hi Granddad, thanks for your input,

I changed everything in my WS master copy to first person. "The defendant"

Also all mention of IPC I have removed. 

IloveElephants

If anyone else has other ideas or can see mistakes on my WS not mentioned on the recent posts please share, thank you 

IloveElephants

*****************UPDATE *************************

I received an email from DCB "Legal" with an attachment PDF form N279 Notice of discontinuance

We act for the Claimant in the above matter.  

 

Our client has instructed us to discontinue Court proceedings and close our file. Therefore, please find enclosed the Claimant’s N279 Notice of Discontinuance for your records.  

 

The attached has also been filed with the Court. 

 

We will now proceed to close our file accordingly. 

Kind Regards, 

 

George Perrett 

DCB Legal Limited 

So my question is this genuine or are they trying to play games and open the claim at the last minute? Shall I scrap my WS now as its not needed for this case?

Thank you everyone