UKPC DCB Legal court claim - Not parking within marking of bay

Car1980

Contract also states

"Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 charge: ANPR in operation."

Is there a pay machine because the contract also states 

"Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 charge: pay by phone."

If not, almost everybody owes a hundred quid.

Might be worth sticking in to show how it's a nonsense contract. You also can't "comply at any time" whilst "pay by phone" (sic).

Also no hierarchy of information on that sign. UKPC is at the top of the tree, followed by Pay on Exit. The rest of the sign (95%) is all small print. The size of the sign is irrelevant when the text is the same
point size as if an A4 sheet of paper was stuck to the wall.

All signs are generally black and white and are given equal status. A contract with a list of potentially onerous terms should stand out from the rest so that they cannot be missed.

If you did pay by phone why weren't the terms of the contract shown at the point of contact between you and the Claimant when they would be at the clearest?

It's an unavoidable truth that the clearer a parking company makes their contractual signage, the fewer occasions the public breaches them and the less profit is made by the claimant.

If this does ever get to a hearing it would be interesting to ask their solicitor "would I have to pay £100 if I parked in a toddler and parent space with my 17 year old son?"

1505grandad

An observation  -  PoC state pcn "issued" 23/02/2024 and the claim form issued 22/07/2024  -  seems a bit quick?.

Anyway, in case you are including the following para in the WS, the "single (joint)" unregulated CoP was published June 2024  -  therefore the BPA CoP is the relevant CoP for the claimant. I believe the IAS relates to IPC AoS members:-

"Exaggerated Claim and “market failure” currently examined by UK  Government 

1. The alleged “core debt” from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the  industry cap set out in the IAS Code of Practice). I have seen no evidence that the  added damages/fees are genuine."

tescovaluevodka

Car1980 said:

Contract also states

"Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 charge: ANPR in operation."

Is there a pay machine because the contract also states 

"Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 charge: pay by phone."

If not, almost everybody owes a hundred quid.

Might be worth sticking in to show how it's a nonsense contract. You also can't "comply at any time" whilst "pay by phone" (sic).

Also no hierarchy of information on that sign. UKPC is at the top of the tree, followed by Pay on Exit. The rest of the sign (95%) is all small print. The size of the sign is irrelevant when the text is the same
point size as if an A4 sheet of paper was stuck to the wall.

All signs are generally black and white and are given equal status. A contract with a list of potentially onerous terms should stand out from the rest so that they cannot be missed.

If you did pay by phone why weren't the terms of the contract shown at the point of contact between you and the Claimant when they would be at the clearest?

It's an unavoidable truth that the clearer a parking company makes their contractual signage, the fewer occasions the public breaches them and the less profit is made by the claimant.

If this does ever get to a hearing it would be interesting to ask their solicitor "would I have to pay £100 if I parked in a toddler and parent space with my 17 year old son?"

added the following para's after the signage section. please let if I have conveyed the points correctly.

sorry to ask again, but if im now including points about the contents of the sign, do I still remove the close up showing the poor example of sign contents? 

1. Unclear Terms of contract: the way in which the terms are written does not make sense. The sign states "Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 charge”. The list of terms (containing the alleged breach) contains a mixture of:

1. Options / Recommendations e.g. ”Pay by Phone” (where as there is an option to pay by machine which I did). 

2. Information / warnings - e.g. “ANPR in operation”.

2. It’s not clear for a customer to determine which are terms, which are options, and which are information / warnings. Therefore, it’s impossible to comply with these contradicting terms at all times.

3. Hierarchy of information: A typical sign should prioritise essential information such as onerous terms so that they cannot be missed, while secondary details are relegated to smaller fonts. In this case, the sign containing the terms is a poor example of hierarchy of information. “UKPC” is at the top of the tree, followed by “Pay on Exit”. The rest of the sign (95%) including the terms is all illegible small print.

tescovaluevodka

Coupon-mad said:

Remove all the DLUHC paragraphs if that was already in your defence. What photos of their signs are you attaching? 

do I remove the whole sections - 'Exaggerated Claim and “market failure” currently examined by UK  Government' and 'CRA Breaches'? or just certain parts? most of which is already in the defence slightly different wording. 

Coupon-mad

I would remove that, yes. You don't need that blurb repeated.

I would never put a pic of a close up of the sign, even though you are saying it's illegible. Let THEM prove otherwise.

tescovaluevodka

by removing the two sections, I take it I will also remove the referenced Exhibit 05 – Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript? just to confirm this case specifically isn't mentioned in my defence.

For the evidence, I am keeping just my own evidence along with and the Beavis case evidence (comparison sign and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198). Without pasting the whole lot again, the structure will be as follows:

---

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

• Facts and sequence  of events
• Beavis case is against this claim
• Conclusion
• Costs Assessment
• Statement of Truth 

Exhibit 01: Inadequate Parent / Child Bays (5 total)

Exhibit 02: Bay Size, Shape and Obscurity

Exhibit 03: Entrance signage

Exhibit 04: Signage with Terms and Conditions

Exhibit 05 – The Beavis case sign for comparison

Exhibit 06 – ParkingEye Limited v Beavis

Car1980

Right, if there was a machine I would reword point 1 to try and highlight the ridiculousness.


"Unclear Terms of contract: the way in which the terms are written does not make sense. The signage states, verbatim:

"Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 charge: Pay by phone."

and

"Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 charge: ANPR in operation."

I did not receive a £100 charge for paying through the machine instead of by phone, or for failing to comply with ANPR in operation (sic). By the Claimant's logic, their contract would allow them to issue a PCN to every single driver who decided to pay via the machine."

tescovaluevodka

just phoned up the local court to confirm they had received WS bundle. They notified me that DBC discontinued on the 16th of April and they failed to CC me.

Happy that this is finally over, but annoyed I've then spent several hours preparing a WS during a family holiday.

Thank you to everyone who helped me. 

who do I chase for this discontinuance in writing?

Coupon-mad

tescovaluevodka said:

just phoned up the local court to confirm they had received WS bundle. They notified me that DBC discontinued on the 16th of April and they failed to CC me.

Happy that this is finally over, but annoyed I've then spent several hours preparing a WS during a family holiday.

Thank you to everyone who helped me. 

who do I chase for this discontinuance in writing?

Great news!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Is the NoD in your junk emails? If not, email DCB Legal to ask for a copy or you'll claim wasted costs.

Then show us the NoD so @Umkomaas can add your success to the disco thread, which we can't do without evidence because that thread is shown to the Government,

tescovaluevodka

please see notice of discontinuance below. let me know if that is ok for evidence. thanks again.