DCB Legal bites the dust again for 3 PCNs and told to pay Defendant’s court costs @ hearing on 25/03

Coupon-mad

Yes, I thought it was good.  Bespoke to your case, with evidence.  Just what a Judge wants from a witness.

PDJAM

KeithP said:

You've left your full name and the Claim Number clearly visible in that dropbox file you have shown us.

You forum username also identifies you.

Dropbox also displays: full name shared this file.

1505grandad

A reminder of the actual Defence filed:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81315527/#Comment_81315527

"I was not aware of this forum until after I submitted my poor defence via the MCOL website. The defence was:

"1. There was no clear signage to confirm that the road was owned.
2. I had displayed a blue badge as I was transporting my friend and his disabled son.

I would be happy to provide a witness statement confirming that the blue badge was displayed.

I would also ask the court to ask for proof of clear visible signage of the parking terms and conditions for this road."

The signed were updated 2 years after the PCNs and DCB legal sent me images of the new signs and cropped the time stamps out.


I am gutted if the WS can only be based on the defence above, as I know the blue badge defence is now irrelevant as well."

The PoC (page 1) seem to state a reason  -  " VRM not registered..........."  -  so are the "strike-out" (Chan etc) case/s relevant?

Kayce_Dutton

1505grandad said:

A reminder of the actual Defence filed:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81315527/#Comment_81315527

"I was not aware of this forum until after I submitted my poor defence via the MCOL website. The defence was:

"1. There was no clear signage to confirm that the road was owned.
2. I had displayed a blue badge as I was transporting my friend and his disabled son.

I would be happy to provide a witness statement confirming that the blue badge was displayed.

I would also ask the court to ask for proof of clear visible signage of the parking terms and conditions for this road."

The signed were updated 2 years after the PCNs and DCB legal sent me images of the new signs and cropped the time stamps out.


I am gutted if the WS can only be based on the defence above, as I know the blue badge defence is now irrelevant as well."

The PoC (page 1) seem to state a reason  -  " VRM not registered..........."  -  so are the "strike-out" (Chan etc) case/s relevant?

Good point. I thought those cases were around lack of clear signage, so the terms and conditions i.e register at VRM was not clear or visible 

Coupon-mad

Those cases are not about clear signage. They are only used if the POC do not state the breach (I had assumed you'd checked and had reason to use Chan & Akande, sorry). 

Kayce_Dutton

So I should remove which Exhibit sorry?

Ps I changed my username, just to be clear so you know its me

Kayce_Dutton

Squeaky bum time. 

Apart from removing Chan vs Akande is there anything else 

Kayce_Dutton

I just received the claimants WS bundle. Not sure where to start with this....

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hn355httaep9c97lbt300/Witness-Statement-and-Evidence-Bundle-Pag.pdf?rlkey=1v2pa8w008cuzs60mumjrdkph&st=6z1qrokm&dl=0

Car1980

Don't be alarmed. Most of it is irrelevant and just designed to make them look like they're in the right. Nobody is denying you drive a car so why include pages and pages of photos of it?

Signage is poor. Their usual tactic is to spell it out in text in their witness statement as if it's crystal clear, and then when you look at the sign it's In THE forM of NOnsense

- the signage text is pure visual noise. Some lines are in small type, some large and all seemingly at random.
- no hierarchy of information 
- the bottom half is so small the text simply doesn't exist in contract terms.

The "default" blue badge arrangement is as you've done. The onus is on the client to make it clear that displaying a blue badge does not confer the usual parking arrangements (assuming this wouldn't breach the 2010 Equality Act). They haven't done this, so it IS entirely relevant.

They make the VRM registration machine look obvious but was it? What kind of supermarket expects you to register you car? 

They include the usual drivel of "this is not our usual business" when it is literally their entire business.

Kayce_Dutton

Car1980 said:

Don't be alarmed. Most of it is irrelevant and just designed to make them look like they're in the right. Nobody is denying you drive a car so why include pages and pages of photos of it?

Signage is poor. Their usual tactic is to spell it out in text in their witness statement as if it's crystal clear, and then when you look at the sign it's In THE forM of NOnsense

- the signage text is pure visual noise. Some lines are in small type, some large and all seemingly at random.
- no hierarchy of information 
- the bottom half is so small the text simply doesn't exist in contract terms.

The "default" blue badge arrangement is as you've done. The onus is on the client to make it clear that displaying a blue badge does not confer the usual parking arrangements (assuming this wouldn't breach the 2010 Equality Act). They haven't done this, so it IS entirely relevant.

They make the VRM registration machine look obvious but was it? What kind of supermarket expects you to register you car? 

They include the usual drivel of "this is not our usual business" when it is literally their entire business.

Thanks Carl this has lowered out my stress levels quite a bit!

I have taken out the strike outs Exhibit and any references. Is there anything else you would do?

It sounds like you're saying i have an argument for the blue badge?