CCBC Claim Form UKBC DCB Legal - Parking outside of Marked Bay

B789

Greenhoff said:

OK so I am just putting the defence together and have written the below, is there anything else I need to add or indeed am I saying too much and is Para 4 from the template relevant in this case?

1.      The Defendant was visiting the Warwickshire Shopping Park to pick up a prescription from Boots for their Daughter. There are signs at the entrance to the car park that state a 4 Hour Maximum Stay and in smaller writing, refer to conditions on other signs within the carpark. These other notices are sparse and posted above head height with very small writing making them extremely difficult to identify and read. The parking bays themselves are not clearly identified and are apparently marked by darker coloured blocks within the block paving. These are particularly difficult to differentiate during wet and overcast conditions as was the case on the day in question.

As it is a claim from DCB Legal, the PoC are so sparse and incoherent, perhaps you should keep your paragraph a bit shorter with less detail about what you have noticed about their signs "when visiting" that car park. It is a claim for parking outside of a "marked" bay.

My feeble attempt as a suggestion would be:

The Defendant was visiting the Warwickshire Shopping Park to pick up a prescription from Boots. The parking bays in this car park have no white lines delineating them. They are not clearly identified and, are apparently marked by darker-coloured blocks within the block paving. Evidence will show these are particularly difficult to notice or differentiate during wet and overcast conditions as was the case on the day in question.

If this ever goes to court (unlikely) you have that picture and I think anything about signage is covered in the rest of the defence template anyway.

DW190

B789 said:

Greenhoff said:

. The parking bays themselves are not clearly identified and are apparently marked by darker coloured blocks within the block paving. These are particularly difficult to differentiate during wet and overcast conditions as was the case on the day in question.

Why mention them at all?  By mentioning them you have obviously seen them.  The area around where the car was parked has no markings resembling the white bays on the signs that the Claimant is relying on.  This is confirmed on the images provided by the Claimant.

B789

Good point. Added here:

The Defendant was visiting the Warwickshire Shopping Park to pick up a prescription from Boots. The parking bays in this car park have no white lines delineating them. They are not clearly identified and, after revisiting the site after receipt of the PCN, the Defendant noticed that apparently the bays are marked by darker-coloured blocks within the block paving. Evidence will show these are particularly difficult to notice or differentiate during wet and overcast conditions as was the case on the day in question. The location where the car was parked has no markings resembling the white line delineated bays as depicted on the signs that the Claimant relies on.  This is confirmed by the images provided by the Claimant.

Fruitcake

I wouldn't mention the black blocks at all, only the lack of white lines matching the signs that form the parking contract.

Don't use the GSV image. Use the one showing a single black (possibly oil stained?) block and no white lines.

UKPC signs are always inadequate because the charge for breaching the Ts and C is buried in such small font that it cannot be read from a car-length, let alone a moving vehicle.

In addition, use terms like, "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (meaning what an average person would reasonably believe) and "on the balance of probabilities" (greater than 50%).

Something like, "the man on the Clapham omnibus would expect on the balance of probabilities that parking bays on the site would have continuous white linear surface markings exactly as indicated by white lines shown on the signs that form the parking contract between the claimant and a motorist."
"Since there were no such white surface markings at the site on the material date, it is believed that the man on the Clapham omnibus would reasonably assume there were no bay markings".
Aver that since no such white lines exist at the site, no breach of Ts and Cs occurred, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Greenhoff

OK, so my defence has been issued and an email received from CCBC. I was also going to email the defence to DCB Legal and also raise the fact that my mother-in law is grieving the recent loss of her daughter in the hope that they will just discontinue. Should I bother or just leave this for the WS?

Just trying to avoid M-I-L receiving any more correspondence that is going to cause her more stress.

Le_Kirk

You don't need to send your defence to the claimant or their solicitors as that will be done by CCBC.  I don't think that grief (as much as we here understand it) will be a factor for the robo-claim, conveyor belt process of the PPC and/or their solicitor.  Once the defence has been submitted to CCBC, then the next correspondence to be received will be the DQ - N180, notice of allocation to the small claims court and then an exchange of witness statements.

Greenhoff

Just an update on this one: Letter received from dcblegal, intention to proceed along with their DQ but they might be prepared to settle bless them.

Ignored and filed!

patient_dream

Greenhoff said:

Just an update on this one: Letter received from dcblegal, intention to proceed along with their DQ but they might be prepared to settle bless them.

Ignored and filed!

OH BOY ... as you say .... bless them, and their little cotton socks

TIS the start of their copy and paste drivel which ends with a discontinuation

It's companies like this who make the SRA look like idiots

Greenhoff

patient_dream said:

Greenhoff said:

Just an update on this one: Letter received from dcblegal, intention to proceed along with their DQ but they might be prepared to settle bless them.

Ignored and filed!

OH BOY ... as you say .... bless them, and their little cotton socks

TIS the start of their copy and paste drivel which ends with a discontinuation

It's companies like this who make the SRA look like idiots

It goes to show, this is for my Mother-In-Law and if it had been up to her and her fella (both in their late 70's), they would have paid up by now! Great to be able to have the confidence gained from this forum to reassure them!

Greenhoff

Hi all, quick update on this one as we have just received the Notice of discontinuance through from DCB Legal. Court fee was due on the 8th Jan, just waiting on the confirmation from the court now.

Thanks to all involved with putting the guidance together on this site and Happy New Year!