PARKING ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES ON PRIVATE LAND

Coupon-mad

ballooncowgirl said:

Ok, thank you. Considering it was put together by a complete amateur, one typo not bad. I will send everything off and keep fingers crossed,  

Is it worth adding that the camera and all Costa signage has gone as they they seem to be no longer operating on this area? 

Yes, add that.

Now read this message and please prepare to join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it in August.

It's vital the Government hears from Defendants threatened and frightened by court:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link. Come back in August to take part.

We need to drown out the twisted 'alternative facts' from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorists.

James_Poisson

If the intended meaning of their interpretation of DYL's (which differs to the regulatory use) is meant to be NO PARKING AT ANY TIME then the parking operator is offering no contract to park so they can expect no reimbursement under contract law which is what the charge is issued under. 

It is not and cannot be a penalty charge which is effectively what they are inferring.

Car1980

Another point - double yellow lines on the public highway do not come with supplementary plates.

SINGLE lines do and you are expected to search out the restrictions.

They should not be using double yellows with signs on private land because the implication is that there are no signs and no need to seek one out. The inference is that you are permitted to park under certain circumstances e.g. loading.

They should really use single lines or
double reds. They are the standard for seek out restrictions or no waiting/parking at any time in the United Kingdom. Even double reds come with signage.

ballooncowgirl

I submitted my witness statement bundle on the 17th July for my case on the 12th August.  I received an email from DCB Legal submitting their witness statement on the 24th July

I have today 5th August received a further email from DCB Legal that they want to file a further bundle, which i have refused to accept.  Am i doing the right thing, as their is now only 7  days until the case in court?

Car1980

Yes. Rather odd of them, considering they could have just sent you a supplementary WS to you and the court (which you would bring up as inadmissible at the hearing). Unless it's an intimidation tactic and they have no such thing.

ballooncowgirl

I have refused to accept. They have said they can still use it as they have 7 more days with a deadline of 3 days and are giving me until tomorrow at 12pm to refuse again. I was going to refuse at 11:30am tomorrow, any further thoughts?

Car1980

What does the Order say? Show us a photo.

99% of the time it's 14 days, unless a judge has decided his timetable should deviate.

Coupon-mad

Is it just the combined bundle?

They are possibly required by the Judge's Hearing Order to share the 'bundle' with you (i.e. their WS & evidence plus yours and your defence, all in one paginated combined document).

Maybe it's that, in which case don't refuse it.

Are you sure it's a new WS?

ballooncowgirl

I already recieved their WS with exhibits on the 24th July.

This is the 2 emails which i received this morning 05/08/2025:

1. We write further to the Notice of hearing dated 12/05/2025.   

Please find the attached Index Bundle that we intend to file and serve on 06/08/2025.  Should you agree to the Bundle, please confirm the same.   If we don't hear from you by 12pm tomorrow, we will file the Bundle with its current contents.

I refused this, this morning, and then recieved the following:

2. I write in relation to the below correspondence.

 Please see the attached Notice, page 5 of which states that the parties must seek to agree an indexed, paginated, electronic trial bundle to be filed with the Court no more than 7 days and no less than 3 days prior to the hearing. The deadline for the bundle has therefore not passed. 

We are therefore providing you with a copy of the bundle in compliance with the order.

They have actually got the hearing date wrong, as it is the 12/08/2025.

Is this normal and should i correct the date, do i need to respond, or can I still refuse on the grounds that I will not have time to go over any paperwork they send now?

Thankyou for all your help.
Ballooncowgirl

Coupon-mad

It was wrong to refuse. Don't be obstructive; reply and agree it, if you've checked that it includes the claim, their bundle, plus your defence & your WS and nothing new.

It's exactly what I said it is:

This is the joint bundle ready for the hearing. This is normal for some courts and would have been stated as required in your Hearing Order.