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

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

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. 

Hi Umkomaas, thanks for your input, shall I leave this point out from my crib notes then? I highlighted this point in my WS - As you mentioned Focus on Signage, does anyone else agree? I think it was user s.wood yesterday won a case, he mentioned the 12 month contract and onus on the claimant to show it was reoccurring.  

The ppc is not operating on the site, they were booted out in 2020 when the new owners purchased the pub building, but I understand what you mean. I don't want to open a can of worms here. 
.

Exhibit 12 p34 - Contracts out of date “Initial period” Exhibit 12 – 12 Months beginning on the start date 28-04-2015   P35  – PCNs issued October 2019, Claim issue date June 2022

 

Date of contract = 2015
Period of contract = 1 year
No auto-renewal term in the contract.
No copy of a new or renewed contracted provided.
Reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that the contract ended after 1 year. Had it been renewed then on the balance of probabilities it would have been produced by the claimant. 
Name of landowner does not match that of the company number, see Companies House entry..p37 exhibit 13.
Company name on the site map P32 Exhibit 11 is different to the one on the contract p34,35 exhibit 12.
Neither the signs on site (that form the parking contract with the driver) nor the alleged contract with the landowner permit court claims to be issued, only parking charge notices.

 

Fake add on charges. No proof (no receipts/bank statements) have been provided to show the claimant actually incurred costs and actually paid money.
Debt collection companies work on a no-win, no fee basis.

Hasn’t followed BPA Code of Practice 7.2

If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner prior to legal action being taken – Contract out of date – no permission.

Shall I not mention the above in that case? 

IloveElephants

patient_dream said:

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 ?

This is on my crib sheet for inadequate signage. Thanks to Fruitcake.

Inadequate signage

 

Claimants WS Exhibit 2 – Page 16 stock image sign held on a computer. The Ts and Cs on this sign are not identical to those on the signs present at the site at the material time, and I put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. (Just because they look similar does not mean they are identical.) See exhibit 3 of Claimants WS p26 – back of car, small sign now visible as van drove away.  


All of the claimant's photos of the signs were taken in the dark with flash. None of the signs in the claimant's own evidence bundle are illuminated. They are unreadable 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 my 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 above , poor and non illuminated signage , in the dark , cannot firm a contract , Lord Dennings red hand rule was not met. 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. (Exhibit 05)

patient_dream

All of the claimant's photos of the signs were taken in the dark with flash. None of the signs in the claimant's own evidence bundle are illuminated. 

The big picture was not taken in daylight or darkness, it is either a stock picture or artwork ?

Are DCBL that stupid ???

IloveElephants

patient_dream said:

All of the claimant's photos of the signs were taken in the dark with flash. None of the signs in the claimant's own evidence bundle are illuminated. 

The big picture was not taken in daylight or darkness, it is either a stock picture or artwork ?

Are DCBL that stupid ???

Thanks Patient Dream, 100% correct, I will add this to my crib sheet notes apart from the are dcbl that stupid part. Thank you

patient_dream

IloveElephants said:

patient_dream said:

All of the claimant's photos of the signs were taken in the dark with flash. None of the signs in the claimant's own evidence bundle are illuminated. 

The big picture was not taken in daylight or darkness, it is either a stock picture or artwork ?

Are DCBL that stupid ???

Thanks Patient Dream, 100% correct, I will add this to my crib sheet notes apart from the are dcbl that stupid part. Thank you

The point is that DCBL are telling a court that the stock picture is real and applies to that car park which it does not .... what complete fools they are and they actually believe in this UKPC rubbish

Jenni_D

Be careful - what matters is exactly how they've referred to that image in their WS. Simply enunciate that the image is merely a stock image representation of standard signage, and the Claimant is put to strict proof that this exact signage was on the site at that time, and bound to be easily seen and read by the driver. (Then elaborate re. it being dark and no illumination of signs, so the driver was unlikely to be able to be bound by contractual terms that could not be seen or even read).

IloveElephants

Jenni_D said:

Be careful - what matters is exactly how they've referred to that image in their WS. Simply enunciate that the image is merely a stock image representation of standard signage, and the Claimant is put to strict proof that this exact signage was on the site at that time, and bound to be easily seen and read by the driver. (Then elaborate re. it being dark and no illumination of signs, so the driver was unlikely to be able to be bound by contractual terms that could not be seen or even read).

Thanks Jenni,

Quick question, Do I need to print of 50 pages of my WS and take to court? The only document that I am taking other than my crib sheets are some ID and the court hearing letter which I will print.

Many thanks

Fruitcake

You will need your own a copy of your WS otherwise you won't be able to refer to it if asked questions about it, nor will you be able to refer to any parts of it you want to highlight about comments made by the claimant during the hearing.

IloveElephants

Fruitcake said:

You will need your own a copy of your WS otherwise you won't be able to refer to it if asked questions about it, nor will you be able to refer to any parts of it you want to highlight about comments made by the claimant during the hearing.

Thanks Fruitcake, that's a lot of paper, I wish everything was paperless (digital) nevertheless thank you 

The_Loner

You’ll need a copy of their WS as well