Parking Ticket Have Received a Claim Form

Parker123456

Hello nosferatu

Yes I read the link D_P posted. TBH I am not very good with this sort of stuff and it was hard reading. I did pay particular attention to the promissory estoppel section but not sure how to put in a few words concisely to get my point across.

Parker123456

Hello nosferatu

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. Under promissory estoppel law this promise from the landholder forms a superior contract to that of the alleged contract offered by the private parking company.

Does this read better and in context?

nosferatu1001

"Promissory estoppel is a doctrine in contract law that stops a person from going back on a promise even if a legal contract does not exist."
So there are two issues you can raise
1) The agreement with the putative landholder - the business - to offer parking and to ensure your vehicle was correctly registered forms a superior contract(ual licence, technically) than any offered by a mere agent of the landholder. THIS contract(ual licence to occupy the land) does not have any charge associated with breaching any terms, and in any case, no terms of this contract were broken
As the claimant has nothing to offer you - they cant offer you something you already have, ie a licence to park - youre in no position to agree to their contract. They have no consideration. Without consideration, there cannot be a contract. Without a contract, there cannot be a charge for breach of contract. 
2) Even if the PPC claims their contract was still in place, they are Estopped from taking any action as you are able to rely on the agreement with the landholder. This part is the promissory estoppel part. There was a promise made by their principal, and as the agent of that principal they are bound by the same promise. 

Parker123456

apologies for my dumbness but does my defence (as last above) convey the fact of promissory estoppel? or am I required to elaborate more? I was informed to keep the defence short and concise which is what I am trying to do but failing obviously.

nosferatu1001

It doesnt. to my view
Ive explained more - having read my explanation, can you see where yuors to my mind falls short?

Parker123456

yes I do but If I were to use your example in that way I would have been going against the advice earlier 1: not to use sub sets in the defence as the template didn't have sub sets and 2: would be too long. 

nosferatu1001

Im not telling you to use my example, nor am I telling you to create sub para. 
16, 17, 18. 
Done
Do you now understand more what the doctrine means?

Parker123456

Hello nosferatu
 I understand the promissory estoppel doctrine whereby the promise from the landholder means the PPC can not enforce their contract as they are the agents of the landholder and as such are bound by the same promise. 

I am unsure if I am required to go into the detail you advised "THIS contract(ual licence to occupy the land) does not have any charge associated with breaching any terms, and in any case, no terms of this contract were broken
As the claimant has nothing to offer you - they cant offer you something you already have, ie a licence to park - youre in no position to agree to their contract. They have no consideration. Without consideration, there cannot be a contract. Without a contract, there cannot be a charge for breach of contract."

My latest draft below

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 XXXXXXX to park on site, the landholder would ensure this was properly registered with the Claimant. This promise from the landholder forms a superior contract to that of the alleged contract offered by the agent of the landholder

 

18. The Defendant further relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, since the prior contract with the landholder which granted permission to park, the Claimant is bound by the same promise being an agent of the landholder   

Umkomaas

Looks much better. 

Le_Kirk

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’.

I would just clean it up a it as it was confusing: -

16.      The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question and, on the two separate occasions to which 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’.