Letter of claim DCBL/UKPC

teddyinwonderland

Also quick question with filing my acknowledgment of service on 5th of December is it today my deadline to send my defence or is it 3rd of January as @KeithP mentioned previously 

KeithP

teddyinwonderland said:

Also quick question with filing my acknowledgment of service on 5th of December is it today my deadline to send my defence...

No.

teddyinwonderland said:

...or is it 3rd of January as @KeithP mentioned previously 

Yes.     

teddyinwonderland

KeithP said:

teddyinwonderland said:

Also quick question with filing my acknowledgment of service on 5th of December is it today my deadline to send my defence...

No.

teddyinwonderland said:

...or is it 3rd of January as @KeithP mentioned previously 

Yes.     

I don’t want to wait until the very last minute especially with the bank holidays coming now might be best if I send my defence sooner rather than later I believe?

is it all good to go or there’s more to add or remove?
I think I explained in my own words why I received the PCN, including as @c@Coupon-mad suggested to say that it might be the ticketer who parked outside of the lines and “set me up”, mentioned about the unreadable signs and mentioned cases that found those same signs “forbidding”

Coupon-mad

Was the PCN issued for 'parking out of s marked bay'?  If so, then the stuff about not having a permit is irrelevant, surely?

Change this as shown:


3.The Defendant parked at the only space available at the carpark next to a car that was parked at an angle, with a wheel outside of the line.  I had no choice but to mirror their angle to park courteously in the only empty bay beside them. The Defendant realised afterwards, that this was likely to have been the vehicle of the UKPC ticketer, because of the cynical timing and it being reported as a likely practice of UKPC to set people up (this is a firm who admitted to altering evidence and were twice banned by the DVLA) .


You need to add the rest of what I already advised you.  

teddyinwonderland

Coupon-mad said:

Was the PCN issued for 'parking out of s marked bay'?  If so, then the stuff about not having a permit is irrelevant, surely?

Change this as shown:

3.The Defendant parked at the only space available at the carpark next to a car that was parked at an angle, with a wheel outside of the line.  I had no choice but to mirror their angle to park courteously in the only empty bay beside them. The Defendant realised afterwards, that this was likely to have been the vehicle of the UKPC ticketer, because of the cynical timing and it being reported as a likely practice of UKPC to set people up (this is a firm who admitted to altering evidence and were twice banned by the DVLA) .



You need to add the rest of what I already advised you.  

On the PCN it says “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay ” although in emails DCBL tried adding parked in disabled bay with no disabled badge but surely they can’t use that in court if it’s not on the PCN?
The sign does say with large letters “no unauthorised parking” and pretty sure in cases I mentioned in para 4 especially in the case UKPC v Masterson the sign was the same where the signs were found forbidding and no contractual relationship was found. Or no point in saying this? 

So basically: 
3.The Defendant parked at the only space available at the carpark next to a car that was parked at an angle, with a wheel outside of the line.  I had no choice but to mirror their angle to park courteously in the only empty bay beside them. The Defendant realised afterwards, that this was likely to have been the vehicle of the UKPC ticketer, because of the cynical timing and it being reported as a likely practice of UKPC to set people up (this is a firm who admitted to altering evidence and were twice banned by the DVLA) .  The Defendant is requesting the Claimant to prove that the diagonally parked vehicle is not their ticketer and expect them to attend the hearing to be cross-examined.

4. The Claimant’s sign is positioned above head height, with charges and terms in small print, as can be seen in evidence photos given by Claimant. The terms and conditions of the Claimant’s signs are displayed in a font that is too small to be read from a passing vehicle. The only clear term is of “no unauthorised parking”. It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 

Was para for about the unreadable signs enough or should I add more to it?

Coupon-mad

Was it an accessible bay?  I don't think you mentioned that before...

teddyinwonderland

I tried parking on a proper bay …these are the pictures Ukpc supplied 

Le_Kirk

teddyinwonderland said:

3.The Defendant parked at the only space available at the carpark next to a car that was parked at an angle, with a wheel outside of the line.  I The defendant had no choice but to mirror their angle to park courteously in the only empty bay beside them. The Defendant realised afterwards, that this was likely to have been the vehicle of the UKPC ticketer, because of the cynical timing and it being reported as a likely practice of UKPC to set people up (this is a firm who admitted to altering evidence and were twice banned by the DVLA) .  The Defendant is requesting the Claimant to prove that the diagonally parked vehicle is not their ticketer and expect them to attend the hearing to be cross-examined.

Change as advised above if it is a defence - written in third person.  Those pictures don't do you any favours as it looks like you parked parallel to the markings rather than at an angle as you describe in your defence.

teddyinwonderland

I know, it’s a shame I didn’t take my own photos back then. Should I still leave my defence as it is with the edit you did ? @Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk

teddyinwonderland said:

I know, it’s a shame I didn’t take my own photos back then. Should I still leave my defence as it is with the edit you did ? @Le_Kirk

I would just make it clear to the judge that the car in the next bay was taking up one and a half bays forcing you to take up half of the next bay, rather then saying it was angled in.  Otherwise it is OK.