DCBL/UKPC old parking tickets from 2016....

[chazel]

Hello

I would be grateful for any help with four parking tickets that DCBL are trying to collect on from 2016 on behalf of UKPC.

Here is an example of the notice to keeper, and apparently there was a ticket on the car (attached).

There are four tickets in total. I'm pretty sure we weren't parked but stopping on all four, and the inspector knew that!

I was thinking of using POFA to get these cancelled by looking at another thread : https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...ars-has-passed

As far as I can see, there is only the "period of parking" that is not met, but not sure if I can add anything else to get these cancelled.

DCBL want £160 (not the legal company, the Ltd company) so I know what will be coming down the road, and want to prepare my letter to the legal team to get these cancelled. Even if we paid just the original fine and not the additional £60 for each ticket, I would be relived.

It's worth noting that they do not continue to control the private land, it's another company, and at the time, there was no entrance sign, just the rubbish ones that you can't see what they say on their photo evidence and we were able to cancel several tickets for an older vehicle based on this, (I have the letter evidence to confirm this too).

Thank you for your help in advance!

[ostell]

So the sign is critical in this, it may be a forbidding sign in that there is not an offer to park. See this :

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To claim that a contract was created with non permit holders when it is specifically forbidden is perverse. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.


The £60 is an abuse of process, see here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0


Was this a hire car?

[chazel]

Thank you for your quick reply!

I cannot see the sign in the evidence provided, see attached picture. This is the best photo they have from an SAR request previously (we've been down this road before where they snuck in a claim knowing we weren't at the address - and when asking for evidence of the actual sign, they merely produced a PDF copy, which is also attached.)

I'm not sure, however, that a PDF copy of the sign is enough to let them win in court, but may allow them to not accept cancelling it before hand (which is my goal).

Basically, I cannot deal with the anxiety of going to court, want to attempt to cancel them, or pay the £100. I know the £60 is abuse of power, thank you for the link which I can use


This was not a hire car.


Best

Cx

[chazel]

Sorry - another quick note is that UKPC and the landowner had a contract at the time (which I have a copy of).

If the sign is forbidding in nature - does this still apply when UKPC are contracted?

Best

Cx

[ostell]

The sign says no Unauthorised parking then claims that a contract was created even when you did something that was forbidden.

[chazel]

Thank you for confirming the sign is forbidding

If we are to reply to the legal team when they contact us, is our reply the following to cancel all tickets (as UKPC are contracted with the landowner) :

The alleged parking signs you have provided are not contractual and therefore no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC.

Please consider this letter as the last correspondence from us as the tickets are considered cancelled.


?

Should I provide case law too as per your original post?

Cx

[ostell]

That's not what I said! Use the wording I gave you as a basis

[chazel]

Hi, sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm really quite confused.

Are you able to explain what you meant and I can try and wrap my head around this?

1. Do I have a basis to cancel these based on their contradictions?

2. Furthermore, do you also think that if they are unable to provide legible pictures of the signs from the incident, and they are no longer running that area, that they cannot prove what signs are there in the first place? i.e. how do I know that I entered into a contract with them?

Thank you for your time,


Cx

[ostell]

The signs are contractual to those that are authorised so your statement that they are not contractual are untrue. Use the paragraph I posted.

read the case law and if applicable then use it.

They may, or may not have photos of the signs.

[chazel]

Thank you for your help.

I’ll do that! I do remember reading one of those cases a couple years ago and happy to there are more, which I will look at.

if I have any further questions when further correspondence is received, would you be open to help me if post here ?

Thank you again.

Cx

[chazel]

Good afternoon

We have received the first DCB legal letter for one of the tickets (total £160).

I have started a thread on MSE, and advised to say tell that need to hold this for 30 days whilst seeking debt advice.

I am worried about what the defence for this is since this would be defended as a Lay Representative for a relative.

Concerned about the additional costs if lost, travel, etc. and therefore weighing up the options.

Should I upload the SAR pack here or on a link (if not what is best?) for comment?

Also mentioned that UKPC don't use DCBLegal and that this may not even be pursued in court.

Mainly confused and any further advice than what I have would be greatly appreciated!

[ostell]

So as well as the forbidding with no offer of a contract to anyone Unauthorised they are also a using the process by adding in additional costs. Read this case and use the arguments within it https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0

[chazel]

Thank you.

The signage "evidence" provided in the SAR bundle is unclear and I have not requested further evidence of the signage.

In terms of the defence, would you suggest the I aim for not clear signage of evidence of the alleged terms? Angling more towards there being no period of parking on the notice to keeper, or driver, as well as unclear signage and no clear and or good quality evidence of the signage at the time (it is no longer there)?

Or, do I go with the forbidding sign admitting that there was sign and that it is legible from the evidence...?

If I went with the former, and then in their evidence bundle they add in a pdf version of the sign, is that when I can add in the latter? Can I have back up arguments that are not in my witness statement ready to go if the hearing goes in that direction?

Sorry for all the questions - trying to understand how to get this right.

[ostell]

You go with everything that is applicable. You add in your own photos if applicable. Do their pictures agree with yours?

[chazel]

The whole signage is long gone as taken over by someone else.

The pdf earlier provided is from an old case, and therefore, wouldn't want to give them any kind of upper hand...