Several DCBL Letters received. Now at WS stage. Help Needed! (Updated Thread Title)

Capana

Hi guys, I've changed the access rights of the file now so anyone can view it. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G9r9fuYGZsoc2Y2Xlm8Xpu_E5h_kB5BP/view?usp=drive_link

Let me know if it works

Coupon-mad

Capana said:

The Defendant was parked on site at St Thomas Hospital, London, SE1 7EH to pick up a passenger from the normal pick up location whilst working as a Private Hire Driver.

The location the Defendant used to stop is and has been used by all Private Hire Drivers for a very long time without any issues or warnings.

That coupled with the guidelines TFL provide to Private Hire Drivers which states that Private Hire Drivers can stop on double red lines to pick up passengers within a reasonable time frame led the Defendant to assume it to be okay to stop there.

It was a rainy and wet day and the defendant didn’t notice any signs stating there would be any breach to stop there.

Just reminding us of the claim and facts and we can see that the signage referred to at St Thomas' Hospital offers no contract (prohibits, not grants, a parking licence).

I'd expect DCB Legal to discontinue soon.

Your new link does work. I had a quick look and 51 pages is one too many for county courts.

But Chan and Akande are not relevant to the POC in your case, so remove those cases and strike outs, and remove all the early paragraphs about those judgments.

1505grandad

You have stated the wrong claimant on the WS heading.

Capana

New Link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lXBfUCyEdiHUqTLkxBefLIAEv5Y7rcBN/view?usp=sharing

"Your new link does work. I had a quick look and 51 pages is one too many for county courts.

But Chan and Akande are not relevant to the POC in your case, so remove those cases and strike outs, and remove all the early paragraphs about those judgments."

I've updated the file to remove the statements and cases as suggested.



"You have stated the wrong claimant on the WS heading." - Were you referring to where I put DCB Legal? If so I've changed that also.

Can you guys let me know if it looks okay so far?

Thanks

Capana

Hey guys, any update on the latest changes would be much appreciated.

Le_Kirk

The change of signs reflect the fact that Private Hire Drivers can now stop off and drop off passengers

at the exact same spot for which the claimant is pursuing a claim of ‘No Parking Or Waiting At Anytime’.

For. Thus this claim seems to be issued on unfair grounds.

Changes as above.  Where are Chan and Akande, see here 15 August 2024 at 9:33AM <<<<LINK.
Not sure you will get all your costs - especially child care - unless you can prove unreasonable behaviour on the part of the claimant, usually a very high bar.  Provided you add chan and Akande (and I would suggest you don't need all the other judgments) and assuming the WS reflects what you wrote in your defence AND the POC were sparse, then it looks good to me.
ETA The POC are not sparse so you cannot use Chan & Akande

Capana

Where are Chan and Akande

I removed the Chan and Akande cases and strike outs as mentioned by coupon-mad above. Should they be added back in?

Coupon-mad

No. I already advised you on that.

Le_Kirk

Capana said:

Where are Chan and Akande

I removed the Chan and Akande cases and strike outs as mentioned by coupon-mad above. Should they be added back in?

After I saw @Coupon-mad's comments, I went back and looked at the POC on the claim form and they are not sparse, so Chan & Akande are not suitable for use.  I have edited my prior post so you don't become confused again.

Capana

Okay, got it. Thanks guys.

Also...

The Notice of Trial Date letter states that "Unless the claimant does by 4.oopm on the 25 July 2025 pay to the court the trial fee of £27 or file a properly completed application (i.e one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with the fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 25 July 2025 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred."

So I assume National parking control group limited or DCBL will take some sort of action ASAP, right?