Badly marked parking bays in a roadway

RedDragonHpc

Ouch!

Thanks @B789 for your observations. I do regret not being able to refine the defence as you suggest. 

Life is hectic and I've almost considered giving up, but this forum constantly reassures us newbies that there will likely be a favourable outcome if you stick at it. Plus I'm damned if I'll pay some scammers for doing nothing wrong. The guidance here is fantastic, accurate and inspires huge confidence, but BOY there's a hell of a lot of time-intensive reading to do.

I don't want to put anyone off though. Would you pay £60 to an undeserving lowlife? No, so persevere like I'm doing and fight the scammers. 

Just post your defence here for checking a lot earlier than I did.

Coupon-mad

I think we can & should start suggesting something like that is added for DCBLegal claims in general, except this phrase is only for multi-ticket cases, so it will need a small editing tweak:

"a claim with this many allegations."

RedDragonHpc

U.K.P-C / DCBLegal have failed to inform the court that they wished to proceed and the claim is now stayed.

I'VE EFFECTIVELY WON!

Many thanks are due to all helpers on this forum.

I've persevered through all the worrying and farcical stages and have ended up paying nothing. I did warn U.K.P-C to stop wasting their time and money, but they never listened!   It was a genuine warning (I obviously had an ulterior motive), but it didn't stop them writing a final letter pretending that they were proceeding with the claim. A quick call to CCBC exposed that lie.

Coupon-mad

Don't speak too soon.  Hang on to everything because they will unstay it,

RedDragonHpc

Coupon-mad said:

Don't speak too soon.  Hang on to everything because they will unstay it,

But surely the judge they petition to unstay the claim will review my defence and conclude it is strong and refuse to unstay it?

Coupon-mad

Nope, sorry, it's a nod through.

Le_Kirk

Courts do seem to give more leeway to a clamant than a defendant for some reason!

B789

Don't worry though, you are dealing with the intellectually challenged DCB Legal and even if they unstay the claim, they will most likely discontinue before it ever gets to court.

RedDragonHpc

OK so they have unstayed the claim.

[For simplicity in my defence I've admitted to being the owner & driver.]

DCB Legal/UKPC are continuing, and have assumed that because my car was parked right beside the UKPC sign my car was therefore parked incorrectly. 

Is there anything in the sign's wording that indicates parking is not allowed beside the sign? It appears to me that the sign defines where parking is allowed (eg. in a parking bay), and I was parked in what appeared to be* a bay. POPLA also wrongly assumed that parking beside the sign is evidence of incorrect parking.



* "appeared to be" is the foundation of my defence. Because of ambiguous road markings I parked in what I thought was a parking bay, but due to worn out yellow lines wasn't intended to be.

At this site there are also UKPC signs beside official parking bays.

KeithP

RedDragonHpc said:

Because of ambiguous road markings...

I think you need to read Section 69 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It states quite succinctly...

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.