DCB Legal VCS claim

PolePosition2

Area parked was in the area of the lorry but if the lorry is allowed to park and there is nothing in the t&cs to say that they can  park there like except for  'Loading/unloading' vehicles and no sign or writing on the ground to say that it is an area for lorries to unload then it's one rule for one and one rule for another depending on your reason purpose for parking there and making exceptions to the t&C's. - they either apply to all or they don't apply at all, unless stated otherwise.

Which is why I and many others have parked there as it is not marked as an area specific to lorries.

It's an area that tempts drivers to park as it has no purpose and doesn't appear to block anyone since it's not mentioned it's an area for lorries.

If the T&C's are valid then it must apply to all unless it specifies otherwise which it doesn't.

PolePosition2

another angle of the area which is not a boxed/cross hatched area just diagonal lines

Coupon-mad

Looks like a legitimate unloading area - no hatched or red lines - and clearly it is regularly used as such, due to your evidenced habitual practice. That's what you need to say and show the court, as well as the fact that the sign is prohibitive because it says "no parking" and doesn't offer any contract to drivers using the loading area.

In fact the sign is silent about loading/unloading and that right is not restricted inly to lorries. They could have added a sign to create it as a commercial vehicles unloading bay only ... but they didn't.

Crux of defence: The car wasn't parked (unloading is different - see Jopson v HomeGuard) and it isn't a 'prohibited area' as pleaded in the claim form particulars.

PolePosition2

There is a hatched area under the lorry though Coupon-mad does that change things?

Coupon-mad

OK - I'd just remove that from what I said.

A hatched area habitually used for unloading is de facto a loading bay.

Looks like a loading area and that's what you need to say and show the court, as well as the fact that the sign is prohibitive because it says "no parking" and doesn't offer any contract to drivers using the loading area.

In fact the sign is silent about loading/unloading and that right is not restricted only to lorries. They could have added a sign to create it as a commercial vehicles unloading bay only ... but they didn't.

Crux of defence:

The car wasn't parked (unloading is different - see Jopson v HomeGuard) and it isn't a 'prohibited area' as pleaded in the claim form particulars because it is regularly used for loading as a habitual practice.

PolePosition2

Coupon-mad said:

The car wasn't parked (unloading is different - see Jopson v HomeGuard) and it isn't a 'prohibited area' as pleaded in the claim form particulars because it is regularly used for loading as a habitual practice.

This is a much clearer picture of the area parked and as you interestingly say Coupon-mad it can't be a prohibited area as pleaded in the claim form particulars since it is used regularly every day for loading which is as you say "habitual practice"



Also, notice the sign on the left turned the opposite way albeit is the same worded sign as the one in the background and on entry.

Now look at this sign on entry and the amount of "clutter" that surrounds it coming off a very narrow two lane traffic control carriageway.



The sign is hiding behind the TACO BELL sign along with a triangular sign warning of pedestrians and a blue No Exit sign, plus another sign in white, so five signs in all to contend with and distract you.

Moving forward, Am I allowed to submit additional defence now I've already submitted my defence and AOS.

Mediation call is in about 4 weeks time!!!

Can I add this now at this stage 

"A hatched area habitually used for unloading is de facto a loading bay.

Looks like a loading area and that's what you need to say and show the court, as well as the fact that the sign is prohibitive because it says "no parking" and doesn't offer any contract to drivers using the loading area.

In fact the sign is silent about loading/unloading and that right is not restricted only to lorries. They could have added a sign to create it as a commercial vehicles unloading bay only ... but they didn't.

Crux of defence:

The car wasn't parked (unloading is different - see Jopson v HomeGuard) and it isn't a 'prohibited area' as pleaded in the claim form particulars because it is regularly used for loading as a habitual practice."

Le_Kirk

You cannot add to or change a defence once submitted (well you can but it costs over £300).  Leave it until witness statement stage.

PolePosition2

Le_Kirk said:

You cannot add to or change a defence once submitted (well you can but it costs over £300).  Leave it until witness statement stage.

Appreciate the advice and will do that during WS.

Thanks

Car1980

Remember the magic words - the onus is on the Claimant to make restrictions clear.

PolePosition2

Coupon-mad said:

Crux of defence: The car wasn't parked (unloading is different - see Jopson v HomeGuard) and it isn't a 'prohibited area' as pleaded in the claim form particulars.

Is there a point where it can be argued that stopping becomes parking and if so how long would this be?