DCB Legal again...

OldBugger

Can anyone answer please as I'm really not clued up on court proceedings?

Le_Kirk

It is common for them to include the "another judge, another court" in case of backlog. Did you tick "counterclaim" and pay the appropriate fee on your original defence? Any particular reason you want the hearing to go ahead; do you want to apply for costs over the £95 threshold?

OldBugger

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82150076#Comment_82150076

No I didn't issue a counterclaim on the original defence, that's why I was asking if I could do it as the court directions mentions applying for a variation (paragraph 4).

The reason I want it to go to court is because I believe I have a cast iron defence, and I believe this PPC are actively targetting disabled drivers by entrapment, and I want it called out. My defence includes illegible signage, breaches of the code of conduct and direct discrimination of disabled drivers contrary to the equality act 2010.

This car park has been getting a lot of bad reviews lately and people are staring to boycot it. They have even been issuing PCN's to taxi drivers dropping off and picking up passengers.

Le_Kirk

IANAL so I don't know if a "variation" includes an opportunity to issue a counterclaim at this stage. There are a couple of lawyerly types on the forum who may advise you, one such being @Johnersh

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82150585#Comment_82150585

Probably not worth applying as that would cost £127 - or is it £129 - for an application (without a hearing about that application)

OldBugger

Well, DCB legal have actually filed a reply to my defence.

A lot of waffle with no substance basically saying I have to prove everything I've said in my defence. I haven't posted their exhibit 1 and 3 as it's just NTK's and supporting photos. However exhibit 2 gets interesting.

What they have provided are numerous photos of signage throughout the site no doubt to try to prove that their signage was adequate. However they've included 5 photos of a completely different car park. Below is their evidence that the signage was adequate. 1st image shows a picture of their signs on the day of event. 2nd photo shows a picture of their sign taken 5 years earlier. 3rd picture shows a template of their sign.

If you compare signs 2 and 3 you will notice that on the actual sign there are 7 T&C's whereas on the template there are only 6. Also, regarding the £70 add on, on the actual sign it says (near the bottom) "additional charges will apply" but on the template it says "an additional charge of £60 will apply" So where did the £70 being claimed come from (rhetorical question).

This to me just proves their incompetance by providing a photo of an illegible sign as evidence of the signage being adequate. And as further proof of their incompetance have a read of paragraph 14 of their reply to my defence (below).

The vehicle was parked in a disabled bay with a valid blue badge on display!

So does the fact that they've submitted a reply to my defence mean they are planning to attend the preliminary hearing?

MrJenkinsEsq

One of these things is not like the others 🎶

Were the hatch marks per bay or shared by adjacent bays?

OldBugger

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82172502#Comment_82172502

All of the other bays had hatchings to both sides of the vehicle (shared) but the bay I was parked in only had hatchings to one side, meaning that the passenger could not exit the vehicle as there was no room so therefore forcing the driver to use the hatchings.

Below is the defence I submitted for this part;

With regard to “relevant obligations”, I am accused of not parking correctly within “the markings” of a bay or space, and this is the basis of this claim. However, the term and condition (that is relied upon) states; “All vehicles must be parked within marked bays”. This suggests to me that vehicles should not park anywhere other than in a bay, It does not mention the word “markings” or having to be within them.  Nonetheless it should be obvious to all of us that in a standard bay the area to park is within the white lines at either side of the bay. However, a disabled bay has a hatched area as well as the bay area (“The Markings”). It is not made clear on any sign whether or not the “bay” includes this hatched area or not. This is a relevant obligation that only affects disabled drivers and therefore if the parking area does not include the hatched area this should be made clear to the disabled driver with separate, prominent, readily visible (i.e. low placed) signs”.

But there is another issue with this particular disabled parking bay. And it is a fundamental issue that caused me (and countless others) to allegedly park outside the [undisclosed] boundaries of the actual bay.

See B 1. All of the disabled bays situated in this section of the car park have a hatched area to BOTH sides of the bay, allowing both drivers and passengers easy egress and ingress to the vehicle, including wheelchair access. All except this bay. In this parking bay, allocated as a disabled bay, there are hatchings only to one side. This means that because the disabled bays are smaller than a standard bay, to allow access for a passenger the driver has no option other than to park on the hatched area of the bay, therefore violating the alleged terms and conditions of the car park and being issued with a PCN.