Multiple UKPC charges for tenant living in Private Rd

Coupon-mad

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes (but quote the Highway Code) and also search the forum because this has been done before (wording about why drivers certainly CAN stop on double yellows) lots of times.

nadsterstar

Coupon-mad said:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes (but quote the Highway Code) and also search the forum because this has been done before (wording about why drivers certainly CAN stop on double yellows) lots of times.

1. Done
2. Noted
3. Just to clarify - is this a Yes to printing out full copies instead of including the TA in full in the exhibits? 
4. Done
5.  How about: 

        12.     I would like to bring the attention of the court to a previous claim (CLAIM-01-REF]), dated 27/03/2023. I had planned to defend this claim, but did not find the claim form in time to reply, and subsequently a Judgment in Default was issued to me on 21 April 2023 for £179.40 for debt and interest, and £107 for costs. This caused great stress to me, and I reluctantly paid in full on 27th April 2023.

        13.     The claimant has inexplicably made these two additional claims despite the set of circumstances have striking similarities to their previous claim ([CLAIM-01-REF]), including the same particulars, same road, same vehicle and same reasons provided. The first claim ([CLAIM-01-REF]) is dated over one month after the PCN dates referenced within [CLAIM-03-REF]. Therefore, all PCN’s were known to the claimant when they originally advanced their first claim.

6. I have tried to find something relevant, but I cant find anything formal that refers to private lands and the use of yellow lines, I wonder if including this could make things worse. The highway code, indicates that double yellow means no waiting or parking during times of operation shown on nearby signs. If there are no signs, then it means no waiting at all times:

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – see ‘Traffic signs’ and ‘Road markings’. Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (see ‘Road markings’) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.

Would I put in something like this?:

 There is large painted letters 'PRIVATE PROPERTY' on the road as you first enter, and a big sign from the landowner states 'These lands, roads and footpaths are private and the general public have no right of way thereover' The only legible wording on the UKPC sign as you enter the road is  'Permit Holders Only' and on the two poorly positioned UKPC signs, 'No Unauthorised Parking'.  It is noted that the road has double yellow lines along the pavements, however, these are not managed in accordance with the highway code.

Therefore, as a resident, and permit holder displaying a UKPC permit, and with signed tenancy agreement that allows the parking of one vehicle on the estate, I would be authorised to park.

And additional question:

7. Do I need to include an exhibit which would help with the Primacy of contract argument? I searched around for something relevant  (Jopson v homeguard and Pace v Mr N) but is there a case that would be similar to mine I should cite?

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

I'm off out in a moment so no time, but you need to look again at the Highway Code. You've missed the bit about stopping to load/unload or pick up/set down passengers being an exception (allowed). 

Or search the forum for one where we've discussed this before. Keywords like:

double yellow loading set down passenger

And to clarify, I meant: "yes, DON'T try to exhibit the whole tenancy agreement". The bundle must be under 50 pages if emailing it to a court.

nadsterstar

I have received an email today from DCBLegal asking me to send a copy of my tenancy agreement. 

"Upon review of your defence we note your allegation that under your tenancy agreement you were permitted to park on the Land without restriction.

In order for us to review this with our Client, please provide a copy of your tenancy agreement."

Do I ignore this?

pustit

Ask them for a copy of their (un-redacted) contract with the landowner

Fruitcake

Tell them that a reputable company would have checked whether residents had an existing right to stop or park on the site before they commenced operations. Tell DCB Legal to ask their client to provide them with a copy of the contract detailing residents' rights that they obtained from the landowner before their parking contract came into force.
In any case, you will provide a copy of (relevant parts of) your residential contract at the Witness Statement stage, and will require them/their client to provide an unredacted copy of the parking contract between them and the landowner.
Alternatively, you could offer to provide an advance copy of the relevant parts of your residential contract once you are in receipt of an unredacted copy of the parking agreement between the landowner and their client.
Do not send anything marked "without prejudice". That way you can show the judge that you tried to narrow the issues in order to avoid a day in court.

nadsterstar

It just so happens that DBCLegal have sent their WS to me. I have also got confirmation from Consentor that they will help to prepare my WS and appear with me at court.

Coupon-mad

nadsterstar said:

It just so happens that DBCLegal have sent their WS to me. I have also got confirmation from Contestor that they will help to prepare my WS and appear with me at court.

I am so glad to hear that.  Has to be worth it and might cost UKPC a lot in costs. Please update us.

nadsterstar

Just finished up at the hearing - short story - I won!

Slightly longer version:
The hearing ended up being held online. The claimant didn't attend the hearing, so the case was discontinued and I have been awarded costs (to cover my lawyer from Contestor Legal attending)

Full version:

The claimant submitted a WS which contained the contract with the landowner, I submitted a revised one as advised by Consentor Legal, which was completely stripped down compared to the one I had prepared above. The key argument from Contestor's point of view, was that the agreement between the landowner and UKPC, contained information that was not flowed down onto the signage, and the signage was unreadable. Contestor left this off my WS, because they wanted it to be a surprise during the hearing. They also were going to argue Estoppel, PoC etc.

After submitting my WS, just before the deadline, UKPC/DBCLegal submitted a supplementary WS to respond to mine. Contestor were going to request that this be thrown out due to late submission.

After all that, we never got the chance to defend, since there was no representation from the claimant. I'm not sure if they didn't turn up due to an oversight, or just to avoid incurring more costs, but either way, I am very relieved!

I would like to say, thank you to everyone on the forum that has helped to guide me through this. In particular I would like to thank @Coupon-mad - what a wonderful person you are for everything you do on here to challenge these awful companies. If anything, this has been a worthwhile journey to learn the small claims court process, which I have never experienced before - and hope that I never do again!

If I can provide any other information that will help anyone else, please let me know.

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news!  Did Jackson Yamba represent you by video? Were the costs a few hundred?!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

A very nice win and yes, all good learning and life experience.  If you still live there, are you still living with this threat every day?

I'd put details of your win up on a communal notice board or by the front door and invite other PCN-affected neighbours to join a Whatsapp group because there will be others being sued.  Your experience will help them and maybe together you can get the POC kicked out (even if some of you are tenants, not leaseholders).