PCN issued on a private, unadopted road

jackRlnd

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So it was an informal agreement between the landowner and residents.

Apologies if this is obvious, but does this mean that whilst they had an informal agreement with me such that the terms of conditions do not apply, would this be the same for any of my contractors/visitors that have been issued PCNs?

Also, is it worth adding anything else in my defence or is this sole point sufficient? I ask this as I've read that there must be acceptance of the offer to make it legally binding and that lack of a response to the offer might invalidate the agreement

Coupon-mad

Apologies if this is obvious, but does this mean that whilst they had an informal agreement with me such that the terms of conditions do not apply, would this be the same for any of my contractors/visitors that have been issued PCNs?

Yes if they were relying upon those same informal 'permits' as you did.

Also, is it worth adding anything else in my defence or is this sole point sufficient?

I refer you back to my post #70 where I told you not to rely on one point!

Show us your defence, based on other residential defences you've read.

jackRlnd

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes if they were relying upon those same informal 'permits' as you did

gah, I missed copy and pasting a paragraph. I tried posting as little as possible in case I could be identified.

The control takes effect on Monday 30 October. However please start using
them right away.

This comes at the end of what I previously posted, does this make a difference in any way?

I've almost finished drafting up my defense so will put that up here shortly.

Coupon-mad

The control takes effect on Monday 30 October. However please start using them right away.
This comes at the end of what I previously posted, does this make a difference in any way?

Not at all. Surely you can see what we see about your case?!

jackRlnd

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not at all. Surely you can see what we see about your case?!

at the risk of coming off more stupid that I already have done, perhaps I am missing the point?

I asked a fried more versed in legal matters and he said they could argue that whilst there was an initial 'suggestion', the last paragraph containing 'However please start using them right away.' is more an order. As such not having the permit on the dashboard means I didn't fulfill my part of the agreement?

If this is not the case then this is obviously good for me.

Coupon-mad

he said they could argue that whilst there was an initial 'suggestion', the last paragraph containing 'However please start using them right away.' is more an order. As such not having the permit on the dashboard means I didn't fulfill my part of the agreement?

I disagree.

PLEASE is neither an order nor a contractual obligation and it's clearly stated to be an 'informal arrangement' between residents and the landowner ONLY, and it says nothing about the linked (and onerous) contractual terms they've hidden from your knowledge by failing to mention it at all.

It should say:

- that you MUST display it
- that this is a formal agreement and contract
- that there are terms also on signage that must be read and are deemed accepted a part of this contract, by the conduct of the driver by parking after enforcement commences from xx date
- that by parking (whether with a permit or not) drivers are agreeing to the terms on the sign and contracting with the parking firm
- that the charge is £100 for breach of any term
- that leaseholders can opt their specific bays out (if there are allocated bays) and how to do that.

You have the polar opposite.

Your letter is more like: ''Here's a sweet, please take one''! Not a contract to eat it by a certain time, on pain of death or fines!

Le_Kirk

The defence is written in the third person so "Defendant" is correct. People who use both are wrong and are usually corrected.
You don't put anything at the start except DEFENCE with a "C" and without STATEMENT.

jackRlnd

Le_Kirk wrote: »

The defence is written in the third person so "Defendant" is correct. People who use both are wrong and are usually corrected.
You don't put anything at the start except DEFENCE with a "C" and without STATEMENT.

I looked at a few more and I see that ppl use "I" in the witness statements. Will keep my defence using "the defendant"

I get so confused. I always spelt it with a C but couponmad suggested S so I just went with that! Looking up it seems C is the english spelling and S is the american spelling

Also, I believe I have until the 9th to submit (which I'l do online via mcol), if I'm not sure whether it's before the 9th, or by end of day 9th, I should be ok submitting it on the 8th even though it's a sunday?

EDIT : looking back .. i did spell it with and S and couponmad correctly pointed out it should be C ... my bad

Le_Kirk

jackRlnd wrote: »

I looked at a few more and I see that ppl use "I" in the witness statements. Will keep my defence using "the defendant"

That is correct Defence - Third Person, Witness Statement (WS) - First Person.

jackRlnd wrote: »

I get so confused. I always spelt it with a C but couponmad suggested S so I just went with that! Looking up it seems C is the english spelling and S is the american spelling

I doubt C-m would have said "S" you probably misread it. You are correct, I don't know why everybody doesn't have their software set to UK English given that we live here!

jackRlnd wrote: »

Also, I believe I have until the 9th to submit (which I'l do online via mcol), if I'm not sure whether it's before the 9th, or by end of day 9th, I should be ok submitting it on the 8th even though it's a Sunday?

If you check back over your thread you probably have a post from KeithP where he laid out the deadlines and gave some other helpful tips. If it is the 9th, it will be before the end of the day but as you will be sending it by e-mail, you could send it on Sunday.

nosferatu1001

You will NOT be using the MCOL system. You will be emailing it.

If your deadline is teh 8th, then as tht is a weekend your actualdeadline is the 9th, by 4pm.