Parking Ticket Have Received a Claim Form

Parker123456

Thank you nosferatu and D_P for the estoppel advice. Should I incorporate this into my defence and quote from the link you provided D_P?

nosferatu1001

Well if you dont raise it as an argument in your defence, you cant raise it later. So yes, you should state it as a reason they are unable o do anything. 
A defence rarely quotes. 

Parker123456

Hello nosferatu thanks for the advice I have updated my defence as below. I know I have duplicated 17 within 16 points. Should I use points for 16 in 17 or vise versa?

16.      The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question and was an authorised patron of the onsite business. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the claimant a punitive £200 ‘parking charge notice’ (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below

 

1. The Defendant has been made aware the onsite business owner had an agreement with the private parking company whereby patrons of the onsite business are exempt from purchasing parking tickets and exempt from receiving ‘private parking tickets’ (PCN) once the patrons vehicle details are passed on to the private parking company. Promissory Estoppel (contract law)

2. The Defendant used the car park in the understanding that customers attending site for the onsite business are exempt from paying parking charges. Promissory Estoppel (contract law)

3. The Defendant used the car park having been authorised by the onsite business owner that he would not require a parking ticket. Promissory Estoppel (contract law)

4. The Defendant once parked then attended to business within the onsite business and at no point was not in the onsite business premises. Once the Defendant had concluded his onsite business work he left the car park and at no time was he in the car park unauthorised.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant’s purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The Defendant entered the location to park being authorised to do so.

6. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was parked without a valid parking ticket’ based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of the vehicle parking on site.

7. The circumstances which led to the Defendant entering the car park were explained to OBServices Parking Consultancy Limited, the Defendant was hoping that the Claimant would have had some understanding and cancel the excessive charge under mitigating circumstances. The Claimant was aware that there are no charges incurred for patrons of the onsite business. The claimant had no interest in resolving the issue or understanding the unfortunate circumstances that led to this situation and are being wholly unreasonable.

 

 

17.      The Defendant had parked his car to attend the business based on site. Having had permission from the business owner he was safe to do so and would not require a parking ticket. The business owner had an agreement with the claimant whereby the registration numbers of the business owner’s patrons would be exempt from parking charges once the registrations had been passed to the claimants.   

nosferatu1001

Its far too long
You will notice there are NO sub points on the defence template
You willa lso notice it is a set of arguments; 16 and 17 are meant to be a place to put BRIEF facts about the case, so a judge has an idea what its about. 
Its tough to be concise, but you need to be

Parker123456

Hi nosferatu
I have shortened the defence as suggested. Do you think this is more concise and covers the arguments I want to convey?

16.      The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question and was an authorised patron of the onsite business. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the claimant a punitive £200 ‘parking charge notice’ (PCN). The Defendant had been made aware the onsite business owner had an agreement with the private parking company whereby patrons of the onsite business are exempt for purchasing parking tickets and exempt from receiving ‘private parking tickets’ (PCN).

 

17.      The Defendant had parked his car to attend the business based on site. Having had permission and being authorised from the business owner he was safe to do so and would not require a parking ticket Promissory Estoppel (contract law).

nosferatu1001

£200? You sure?
Your last sentence in 17 makes no sense...

Parker123456

£200 is for 2 separate tickets (£100 each) one in January and another in April 2017. Is that better?

17.      The Defendant had parked his car to attend the business based on site. Having had permission and being authorised from the business owner he was safe to do so and would not require a parking ticket as per Promissory Estoppel (contract law).

 

nosferatu1001

Yes, you need to make it clear that there was no agrement to pay £100 in the form of a PCN

I assume you are an admitted driver here. If not, then 17 tells them who drove. 
The driver was authorised by the landholder "XYZ Business" to park on the site, and the landholder would ensure this was properly registered. This promise forms a superior contract to the alleged contract offered by the claimant, who is therefore Estopped from taking any action. 

Parker123456

Hello nosferatu
Thank you for all your help
I have changed the wording slightly as below should I be adding in to 17 you statement "This promise forms a superior contract to the alleged contract offered by the claimant, who is therefore Estopped from taking any action. "?

16      The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question and on two separate occasions the claim relates to was an authorised patron of the onsite business. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was no agreement to pay the claimant a punitive £200 (£100 per PCN) ‘parking charge notice’.

 

17      The Defendant had parked his car to attend the business based on site. Having had permission and being authorised by the landholder *********** ********* to park on site, the landholder would ensure this was properly registered with the Private Parking Company as per Promissory Estoppel (contract law)

nosferatu1001

Have you googled the term promissory estoppel? 
You need to, as youre not using it correctly
Yes, i gave you some text to use.