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

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

Mention both.

Stick to the EARLIER deadline for your WS and evidence because this is an Order with MUST making it mandatory:

2. parties must send copies of their WS and documents to the court and each other no later than 4pm on 18th January 2023.

Thanks Coupon-mad

UPDATE.... I have just received an email from dcbl with the claimants WS....
Mr Joel Little, of Union House, 111 New Union Street, Coventry


See link to view claimants solicitors WS, its 87 pages so have not uploaded the exhibits, just the word section.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KHmFENws3Vus11dm-q0k9kD7YhflqHE1kXRMO2T-yRY/edit?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

We will take a look asap...

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

We will take a look asap...

Thanks Coupon-mad

Taiko

Exhibits may help us, if you can get those added. Interesting that they're now including the non-attendance line within their witness statement conclusion... 

IloveElephants

Taiko said:

Exhibits may help us, if you can get those added. Interesting that they're now including the non-attendance line within their witness statement conclusion... 

Hi Taiko,

Please see link with claimants exhibits, 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bx4s5XHh8N3y4fpMCqxRG1Nc4MXdaJOc8cQUfvlfNzs/edit?usp=sharing


If I have not redacted personal info please inform me and I shall scribble them away. 

Taiko

Others might have a different view to this, but I note your tickets are from 2019. Their contract states the initial term is 12 months from 2015. I can't see in the schedules an automatic renewal or anything. 

I might be wrong here, being more the newbie, but that's one of my initial observations. 

IloveElephants

Taiko said:

Others might have a different view to this, but I note your tickets are from 2019. Their contract states the initial term is 12 months from 2015. I can't see in the schedules an automatic renewal or anything. 

I might be wrong here, being more the newbie, but that's one of my initial observations. 

Hi Taiko, well spotted, could anyone else shed some light on this ? Thank you

KeithP

IloveElephants said:

Taiko said:

Others might have a different view to this, but I note your tickets are from 2019. Their contract states the initial term is 12 months from 2015. I can't see in the schedules an automatic renewal or anything. 

I might be wrong here, being more the newbie, but that's one of my initial observations. 

Hi Taiko, well spotted, could anyone else shed some light on this ? Thank you

You need to investigate further.
Has their contract been renewed, or is there an automatic renewal clause in the contract somewhere?

IloveElephants

KeithP said:

IloveElephants said:

Taiko said:

Others might have a different view to this, but I note your tickets are from 2019. Their contract states the initial term is 12 months from 2015. I can't see in the schedules an automatic renewal or anything. 

I might be wrong here, being more the newbie, but that's one of my initial observations. 

Hi Taiko, well spotted, could anyone else shed some light on this ? Thank you

You need to investigate further.
Has their contract been renewed, or is there an automatic renewal clause in the contract somewhere?

Hi Keith, how do I investigate any further? Time is against me to submit my WS Soon, I emailed Sarah Rochester but she left trinity estates, I am reaching out to others in the company to make them aware. 

Has their contract been renewed, or is there an automatic renewal clause in the contract somewhere?

I have no idea but I will ask the judge this question during my case

Fruitcake

Have you shown us the whole of the contract as it appeared in their witness statement?

Who redacted the time stamps on some of the photos in their WS?


I have made the observations below based on the assumption that you have shown us the whole of the claimant's contract.





There is no mention of court on the stock image of the sign. Note that the image of the alleged sign is unreadable in daylight so there is no proof it is capable of forming a contract with the motorist at all, or that it has the same parking terms as that shown in the stock image that is held on a computer. The claimant is put to strict proof the sign in situe at the material time was the same as that in the stock image, and that it states that the motorist can be taken to court for breaching the terms displayed on the sign. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.
The sign forms the parking contract. Terms not displayed on the sign cannot form a contract. 
Thornton v Shoe Lane applies.

The alleged event took place at night. The PPC's own images of your vehicle parked show a sign in the car park which is not readable even when using flash photography. You need to add the fact that following research after that alleged event you discovered that the sign in that image could not be seen at the material time because there was a high sided van parked adjacent to your vehicle that completely obscured the sign. Put the claimant to strict proof that the sign was visible and readable to the motorist at the material time.

The site map has been signed by Emily Nelligan on behalf of Albany Homes Limited and dated 2012.

The parking contract is allegedly between UKPC and Trinity Estates Property Management Limited, not Albany Homes Limited. This agreement does not include a site map, nor is there any proof that the site map from 2012 still applied at the material time. The claimant is put to strict proof that the site boundary map signed on behalf of Albany Homes Limited is a true and accurate representation of the site boundary and position of signage at the material time of the alleged parking event.

The parking contract only permits UKPC to issue parking charges to the driver, registered keeper, or owner of vehicles parked on the site.
It does not permit UKPC to conduct litigation. There is no explicit nor is there an implied right for UKPC to issue court claims nor enforce parking charges through the courts.

The parking contract has a fixed 12 month term, with no renewal clause. If the contract had been renewed either automatically or by manual re-application, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that a copy of the contract would have been provided to support the claimant's claim. No such contract has been provided. It is therefore reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities that the contract ended in 2016 and was not renewed.
The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.