UKPC / DCB Legal - Part 2 - I WON IN COURT

IloveElephants

Update......

Hope everyone is keeping well. My case has been transferred to my local court and I am waiting to hear back from them with a date of hearing. In the mean time I have my WS draft which I have pasted below with the images that I will use. Please give me your feedback/help/assistance to get this to the best version so I can fight these scammers until the end. Thank you everyone

I have shared my WS in a word document, please see the link

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_cU8lqf4dNBrMiab-lxZCYuRFJNJ-P1C/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115730171096675321578&rtpof=true&sd=true

Thank you everyone. 

Le_Kirk

You have a lot of repetition about poor signage, the car park being poorly maintained and there being no ground markings.

As a A high-top van was parked next to the defendant obscuring this would indicate if any signage was present.it was obscured by a high top vehicle.

You don't need to keep repeating "in no way" just say: -

In no way was the floor The floor was not painted or marked saying indicating no parking or out of bounds.

What do you mean here: -

11. The lack of signage and faded white markings in (location) were not present.

It reads like a double negative.  Did you mean: -

11. There was a lack of signage and there were faded white markings in (location) were not present.

Suggestion above but you already have faded markings and lack of signage elsewhere.

12. The signage does state “No unauthorised parking” “all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays”. Assuming the defendant had seen this sign before they parked they would be unsure ..............

In your paragraph 11, you cite a lack of signage, then in paragraph 12, you talk about the signage stating “No unauthorised parking” and “all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays”.  If there were no signs or a lack of signage, how did you know this when you drove in?  Maybe you went back at a later date (on foot) to investigate and found out about the words on the signs.  You need to explain it for the judge.  I suggest you read through it again as if you were the judge and try to understand what you are saying; is there someone you can read it to and ask them if they understand what you are saying?

IloveElephants

Le_Kirk said:

You have a lot of repetition about poor signage, the car park being poorly maintained and there being no ground markings.

As a A high-top van was parked next to the defendant obscuring this would indicate if any signage was present.it was obscured by a high top vehicle.

You don't need to keep repeating "in no way" just say: -

In no way was the floor The floor was not painted or marked saying indicating no parking or out of bounds.

What do you mean here: -

11. The lack of signage and faded white markings in (location) were not present.

It reads like a double negative.  Did you mean: -

11. There was a lack of signage and there were faded white markings in (location) were not present.

Suggestion above but you already have faded markings and lack of signage elsewhere.

12. The signage does state “No unauthorised parking” “all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays”. Assuming the defendant had seen this sign before they parked they would be unsure ..............

In your paragraph 11, you cite a lack of signage, then in paragraph 12, you talk about the signage stating “No unauthorised parking” and “all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays”.  If there were no signs or a lack of signage, how did you know this when you drove in?  Maybe you went back at a later date (on foot) to investigate and found out about the words on the signs.  You need to explain it for the judge.  I suggest you read through it again as if you were the judge and try to understand what you are saying; is there someone you can read it to and ask them if they understand what you are saying?

Hi Le Kirk, thank you so so much for taking the time on your weekend to help me with this.

I will address your comments in order:

The floor was not painted or marked saying indicating no parking or out of bounds. - I rephrased my words and will stick to what you suggested.

 Did you mean: -

11. There was a lack of signage and there were faded white markings in (location) were not present.

Correct. Lack of signage. I will delete the part about faded white markings.

I will delete the part about what the signage says as it opens a can of worms. I will delete paragraph 12 and anything referring to what the signage says. But yes you are correct, I walked past the area a month later near Christmas and remember reading what the signage said. Misleading and not stating to have a permit valid or resident permit as the carpark is converted apartments and business units. To the visitor it just looks like an abandoned pub. However as mentioned I will not mention this. 

Thank you so much

Trainerman

I will delete the part about what the signage says as it opens a can of worms. I will delete paragraph 12 and anything referring to what the signage says. But yes you are correct, I walked past the area a month later near Christmas and remember reading what the signage said. However as mentioned I will not mention this

See what @LeKirk and others advise, but to me it is best left in IF what the signs say actually helps you. If so, simply take the suggestion to clarify it by saying that you went back on a later date and checked  and then realised .....etc

1505grandad

Para 10  -  "On entering the (claimant) did not see any signage from the vehicle clearly indicating the parking restricted areas."  -- (this) is Defendant or I.

Para 13 & 15  -  I don't think it is relevant what the IPC CoP states for a BPA AoS member.

Also you state "banned costs" in several paras but I believe there is a new para to be inserted because of the two J.R.'s which have temporarily held up the new CoP

Fruitcake

UKPC signs are always pants and always inadequate with the £100 charge in such tiny font that it gets lost in the rest of the wording, nor do they conform to the signs in the Beavis case.

If the driver didn't see the signs, then say so.

If you get to see UKPC's WS before you need to submit yours, then upload it to Dropbox or similar then post the link here. You will then get to comment about how crap the signs are in your WS, even if they had been seen.

You can mention Lord Denning's red hand rule, where he says signs must be so obvious "Some clauses I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient."
This applies to the tiny £100 charge on the signs. The smaller the font the bigger, the brighter, the more prominent the "red hand" needs to be to draw the motorist's attention towards it.

I would like to say one other thing. I remember when you first came to this forum, and you were all over the place. I mean no offence, but you were a mess.

You have come a very long way and you should be proud of your progress.

IloveElephants

Trainerman said:

I will delete the part about what the signage says as it opens a can of worms. I will delete paragraph 12 and anything referring to what the signage says. But yes you are correct, I walked past the area a month later near Christmas and remember reading what the signage said. However as mentioned I will not mention this

See what @LeKirk and others advise, but to me it is best left in IF what the signs say actually helps you. If so, simply take the suggestion to clarify it by saying that you went back on a later date and checked  and then realised .....etc

Thank you Traineran, based what you both say its best to include it in that case. I went back on a later date on foot 

IloveElephants

1505grandad said:

Para 10  -  "On entering the (claimant) did not see any signage from the vehicle clearly indicating the parking restricted areas."  -- (this) is Defendant or I.

Para 13 & 15  -  I don't think it is relevant what the IPC CoP states for a BPA AoS member.

Also you state "banned costs" in several paras but I believe there is a new para to be inserted because of the two J.R.'s which have temporarily held up the new CoP

Hi Granddad, hope you are well and thank you for helping me out.

Yes I made an error, on entering the defendent did not see any signage ........

I will remove para 13 & 15 in that case.

Also you state "banned costs" in several paras but I believe there is a new para to be inserted because of the two J.R.'s which have temporarily held up the new CoP

I will highlight all keyword "banned costs" and remove reference to them. If you could kindly share what is the new paragraph to be inserted then I can add it in.

Thank you so much

IloveElephants

Fruitcake said:

UKPC signs are always pants and always inadequate with the £100 charge in such tiny font that it gets lost in the rest of the wording, nor do they conform to the signs in the Beavis case.

If the driver didn't see the signs, then say so.

If you get to see UKPC's WS before you need to submit yours, then upload it to Dropbox or similar then post the link here. You will then get to comment about how crap the signs are in your WS, even if they had been seen.

You can mention Lord Denning's red hand rule, where he says signs must be so obvious "Some clauses I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient."
This applies to the tiny £100 charge on the signs. The smaller the font the bigger, the brighter, the more prominent the "red hand" needs to be to draw the motorist's attention towards it.

I would like to say one other thing. I remember when you first came to this forum, and you were all over the place. I mean no offence, but you were a mess.

You have come a very long way and you should be proud of your progress.

Hi Fruitcake, thank you so so much for your kind comment, yes I was very confused and stressed at the beginning of the year when I received the court papers and how to deal with such issues. But its with the great people on this forum that have given me the experience and I have learnt a lot from them and also I am more confident now after reading the posts on here. 

About the signage, correct I genuinely did not see them, I entered the carpark on both occasions around 11pm on both dark wet frosty nights, the carpark was dark, inadequate lighting, no barriers on entry and no signage outside or inside the carpark as they were obstructed by high top work vans. 

It would be nice to see UKPSs WS and If I do receive it I sure will upload it.  

I will mention Lord Denning's red hand rule, Thank you for the encouragement 

1505grandad

See para 21 in the following WS:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nrdvuuvmtxpdf5i/WS DRAFT URGENT.pdf?dl=