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

Umkomaas

Looking at all your 'crib notes', and now you want to add more to them, how long do you anticipate you will need to present them?  Do you have them in priority order?

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

Looking at all your 'crib notes', and now you want to add more to them, how long do you anticipate you will need to present them?  Do you have them in priority order?

Hi Umkomaas, thanks for replying, I just want to ensure all posts are covered and drill down more into the pathetic signage thus not forming a contract. Will the judge give me a time limit to present? If not I am happy to read all of my notes. Yes I will put them in priority order this evening when I get home to my pc. 

priority number 1 is the "contract" which states 12 months initial period. No mention if it being renewed or any clause in it. Not to mention they are not the landowner who signed it 

Umkomaas

You'll be lucky to get more than a few minutes.

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

You'll be lucky to get more than a few minutes.

I see ok, thanks for clarifying, is it the same for the claimant? or do they get more time

The_Loner

IloveElephants said:

Umkomaas said:

You'll be lucky to get more than a few minutes.

I see ok, thanks for clarifying, is it the same for the claimant? or do they get more time

It will come down to the Judge on how long they allow, it might be in a courtroom, but could also be in the Judges chambers.

1505grandad

Just in case:-

"Exhibit 12 - Contracts out of date - Page 13 - Initial period – 12 Months beginning on the start date 28-04-2015 – PCNs issued INSERT DATE 2019 - Claim issue date June 2022"

"Exhibit 12 – MY WS – Sitemap signed 2012 – Claimant Is put to strict proof the boundary map signed 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."

Per WS content index:-

"Exhibit 11 Site map from claimant                                                                       

 

Exhibit 12 Parking contract"

Should second Ex 12 be 11?        

Fruitcake

IloveElephants said:

This is the sign in the Above from claimants WS - They zoomed in and made it look big but in reality it looks like this: (below)








The above 2 images are also from the claimants WS

from the position of a driver in a car its also impossible to see this, so much going on in this image... especially in the dark, the motion spotlights in the carpark when lit doesn't even reflect the signage, its light beam is focused on the carpark tarmac then cuts out. So you need a binoculars.

If anyone could help me to add some meat on the bones to drill down to the judge how pathetic the signage really is thus not forming a contract would be appreciated. Thank you everyone. 

The first image isn't zoomed in (there are no screws showing), it is a stock image held on a computer. You aver that the Ts and Cs on this sign are not identical to those on the signs present at the site at the material time, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. (Just because they look similar does not mean they are identical.)

The second two, and I believe you have another image from their WS taken from the back of your car show that shows one of the signs as well.

I think all of the claimant's photos of the signs were taken in the dark with flash. Is that correct?
None of the signs in the claimant's own evidence bundle are illuminated. They are illegible even with flash enabled. A motorist could not possibly read them in the dark, they are too high up for a vehicle's headlights to illuminate them, and there was a van to your right obscuring the nearest sign anyway so could not have been seen by the driver even if it had been illuminated.
None of the terms and conditions can be read, even with flash enabled. The signs do not show that a motorist will be liable for a charge if they breach the unreadable terms and conditions nor how much that charge is.

The only part of the signs that are readable are forbidding in nature and incapable of forming a contract.


As mentioned above, you won't get much time to speak so your crib notes need to be short and sweet.

Your main points are,
not the landowner
no contract with the landowner
inadequate signage.
anything mentioned by the claimant when they speak first that you want to rebut.

IloveElephants

Fruitcake said:

IloveElephants said:

This is the sign in the Above from claimants WS - They zoomed in and made it look big but in reality it looks like this: (below)








The above 2 images are also from the claimants WS

from the position of a driver in a car its also impossible to see this, so much going on in this image... especially in the dark, the motion spotlights in the carpark when lit doesn't even reflect the signage, its light beam is focused on the carpark tarmac then cuts out. So you need a binoculars.

If anyone could help me to add some meat on the bones to drill down to the judge how pathetic the signage really is thus not forming a contract would be appreciated. Thank you everyone. 

The first image isn't zoomed in (there are no screws showing), it is a stock image held on a computer. You aver that the Ts and Cs on this sign are not identical to those on the signs present at the site at the material time, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. (Just because they look similar does not mean they are identical.)

The second two, and I believe you have another image from their WS taken from the back of your car show that shows one of the signs as well.

I think all of the claimant's photos of the signs were taken in the dark with flash. Is that correct?
None of the signs in the claimant's own evidence bundle are illuminated. They are illegible even with flash enabled. A motorist could not possibly read them in the dark, they are too high up for a vehicle's headlights to illuminate them, and there was a van to your right obscuring the nearest sign anyway so could not have been seen by the driver even if it had been illuminated.
None of the terms and conditions can be read, even with flash enabled. The signs do not show that a motorist will be liable for a charge if they breach the unreadable terms and conditions nor how much that charge is.

The only part of the signs that are readable are forbidding in nature and incapable of forming a contract.


As mentioned above, you won't get much time to speak so your crib notes need to be short and sweet.

Your main points are,
not the landowner
no contract with the landowner
inadequate signage.
anything mentioned by the claimant when they speak first that you want to rebut.

Thank you so much Fruitcake. FYI this is the image from the claimants WS, As you can see the photos taken in night with heavy flash. Nothing illuminated even with flash. Not to mention the high top van parked obstructing the wall sign when I parked just after midnight.  

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME FOR YOUR COMMENT, NOTED. 

iF i MAY add:

main points are
Contract says 12 months - no mention of it being reoccurring 
not the landowner
no contract with the landowner
inadequate signage.
anything mentioned by the claimant when they speak first that you want to rebut.

Umkomaas

Contract says 12 months - no mention of it being reoccurring 

We've seen this quite often before. Many judges have dismissed it on the basis that as the PPC is still operating at the site, then there's every likelihood that it remains with the permission (albeit undocumented) of the landowner. I wouldn't hang my hat on what might appear to the judge to be a 'shot' at a loophole. 

Signage, in my view, is a much more potent opportunity. 

patient_dream

Fruitcake, brilliant spot about the large image.  To me, that looks like artwork and not an actual sign seen in the car park

DCBL need to be able to prove that this was displayed in the car park. Where was such a sign located
As you say, WHAT HAPPENED TO SCREWS seen on the small signs ?? if this "blow up" represents the actual sign or is this another doctored picture by UKPC

The only UKPC signs I have ever seen are the small unreadable print signs as in the other two images ?  

Also noted that UKPC reference debt collection and that additional charges will be added ?

Even if these complete fools  think that the BPA allows this scam of fake add-ons,  DCBL think (in their dreams) that they can charge DAMAGES  ........ Damages is very different to the fake BPA add-on called the OSNER scam 

Sadly for UKPC and DCBL on the artwork above (with no screw fittings) ...... THERE IS NO MENTION OF DAMAGES

WHY ARE DCBL TRYING TO MUG THE JUDGE ???

Why has Yasmin Mia has already signed to say it's true ??
REALLY ?