UKPC lies (again). I won! Judge struck out the claim!

mmmatt

I'm considering whether or not to add the "forbidding nature of the signs" = no contract argument, but I've always felt that was a bit tenuous, and it could be counterintuitive to have a defence based of lack of signage, but also highlighting signage!

However, since the PoC states "registered users only", perhaps this?

"The PoC states "REGISTERED USERS ONLY", therefore the terms cannot apply to unregistered cars because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship.  If the defendant was not registered then the defendant was trespassing and hence a third party cannot charge the defendant for trespassing, the landowner would have to lodge a civil legal case."

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good and I also tend to think hanging your hat on forbidding signage can be tenuous unless argued well, and as long as it's not relied upon as the only point of defence.

In your case, yes, add the above.

mmmatt

So I've added

CEL vs Chan (with embedded images)

 

6. The Defendant parked at the location because of the lack of clear indications, such as sufficient signage (signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces), road markings, or entrance signs.

<BPA Codes here>

7. The Particulars of Claim states "Registered Users Only", therefore the terms cannot apply to unregistered cars because no offer is invited or made to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship.  To claim that a contract to park was created with non-registered users when it was expressly forbidden is perverse.  If the defendant was not registered then the defendant was trespassing (which is denied) and hence a third party cannot charge the defendant for trespassing, the landowner would have to lodge a civil legal case.

8.  The Defendant denies parking in any area managed by the Claimant. 

I feel I need to include 8. in the defence somewhere, as it's our "ace".  I can't add things to a WS that aren't part of the defence, and the fact the car was outside of the area managed by UKPC seems like such a slam dunk to not add....especially considering they were the ones who showed the site map!

Coupon-mad

Sounds perfect to me. 

mmmatt

I'm not sure what's going on now.

Received both of these in the same letter.

I've been keeping an eye on the MCOL but nothing new since filling the defence and the N180.





It's a little bit confusing as one letter says the defence has been received, and on the other it says they have no record of it?

I haven't had any contact from DCBL short of the standard "we intend to proceed" blah blah.  Haven't seen a defence from them.

I'm guessing I'll just email over a copy of the defence filed with CBNC to the allocated court.

Grizebeck

It's very common 
Just email the defence as requested
Be sure to use the right email address for the relevant court 

Gr1pr

Been several of these on here recently, I suspect a screw up somewhere in the system, either at the CNBC, or at some local court or area , but I suspect that it was at the CNBC in Northampton 

Just do what they ordered, following the advice in the last reply, life's too short to wonder why IT failures happen, or mistakes are made, unless it's about improving safety after a calamity, like the Kobe Bryant incident I watched on Nat Geo last night 

mmmatt

I received this late last year.

Looks like the judge agreed DCBL's claim was total rubbish and Chan has prevailed.






Heard nothing for ages - even emailed the court to see what was going on.  Heard nothing back, but got this in the post yesterday 




Looks like DCBL couldn't or wouldn't file an updated or relevant PoC!

Haven't heard anything back from DCBL.  I will email them to tell them to remove all my data though.

Thanks everyone for your help - wasn't expecting it to go this way, but a great outcome nonetheless! 

Thorndorise

mmmatt said:

I received this late last year.

Looks like the judge agreed DCBL's claim was total rubbish and Chan has prevailed.






Heard nothing for ages - even emailed the court to see what was going on.  Heard nothing back, but got this in the post yesterday 




Looks like DCBL couldn't or wouldn't file an updated or relevant PoC!

Haven't heard anything back from DCBL.  I will email them to tell them to remove all my data though.

Thanks everyone for your help - wasn't expecting it to go this way, but a great outcome nonetheless! 

@Umkomaas One for you!

Congrats!!!

Umkomaas

Thorndorise said:

mmmatt said:

I received this late last year.

Looks like the judge agreed DCBL's claim was total rubbish and Chan has prevailed.






Heard nothing for ages - even emailed the court to see what was going on.  Heard nothing back, but got this in the post yesterday 




Looks like DCBL couldn't or wouldn't file an updated or relevant PoC!

Haven't heard anything back from DCBL.  I will email them to tell them to remove all my data though.

Thanks everyone for your help - wasn't expecting it to go this way, but a great outcome nonetheless! 

@Umkomaas One for you!

Congrats!!!

Thanks, but I'm only counting cases actually discontinued by DCB Legal themselves, rather than where a Judge hands them their a**es back! 😜