Confusing Signage - VCS and DBS Legal

blindmelon7

Hello all,

I'm back! It's been a couple of years but I'm still very grateful for the help and advice you guys gave me on the last one (it went all the way to court but the claimant didn't submit any evidence and were forced to use my grainy photos - highly satisfying ).

This on is a fairly simple one. I was visiting Castleford Lock. The first time I drove in through an open gate (which I later found out had a sign on it, but there was a car parked in front of it). There were additional gates within the car park leading to businesses with signs saying "don't park in front of the gates etc", and some very small parking term signs.

I came back to find a ticket and then found the sign on the gate which read "(no parking symbol) Keep clear 24 hour access - Visitor parking at Castleford Lock". At which point I thought, no problem, I am visiting Castleford Lock, maybe I just parked a bit close to a gate. So I parked there again the next day, carefully avoiding the gates, and got another ticket.

It turns out, despite this car park being about 50m from Castleford Lock, it is not actually the parking for Castleford Lock. The sign belonged to CRT (Canal River Trust) but the car park was actually for Castleford Boat Yard. I submitted a complaint to CRT complaining about the wording who did respond (unhelpfully). I only found out it was for Castleford Boat Yard because it was on the claim form so I will be complaining to them now (if it's not too late).

Anyway, that's the situation. I did an appeal but they did eventually send a claim form (it's VCS represented by DCB Legal). I have done the AOS and am now forming a defence. I'm currently stuck on the defence template. Where it says "Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM." - Is this where I would write out a more legal version of what I wrote above, or would I save this for the witness statement and just say something simple like "the sign appeared to state that this was the visitor car park for Castleford Lock" and continue with the rest of the template?

Thanks,
Blindmelon7

Coupon-mad

Yeah but you don't do that detail for DCB Legal claims. There's a link there to a standard paragraph 3 already written by shahib_02 which only needs a date changing.

blindmelon7

Coupon-mad said:

Yeah but you don't do that detail for DCB Legal claims. There's a link there to a standard paragraph 3 already written by shahib_02 which only needs a date changing.

Ah I misunderstood - I thought that only refered to DCB in combination with Parking Eye.

blindmelon7

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCNs were "issued on 27/08/2024, 29/08/2024”.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1. The Defendant was visiting Castleford Lock. The only visible sign to the car park is on the gate leading in. It reads “(no parking symbol” Keep clear 24 hour access” and then on a separate line in a smaller font “Visitor parking at Castleford Lock”. On the first occasion this sign was not visible due to the gate being open with a car parked across it. Upon finding a note on the vehicle the defendant checked the wording of the sign, believing it to mean that the car park was for visiting Castleford Lock, assumed that there had been a mistake and parked there again. The wording on this sign is confusing, especially as it is a CRT (Canal River Trust) sign. The defendant’s appeal was not successful.

How does that sound?

Coupon-mad

All good but change this:

'assumed that there had been a mistake'

to

concluded that there had been a mistake