Claim form from PCM using gladstones - First time going to court! - CASE WON

Le_Kirk

Use the word "waived" not waivered.  Your explanation below your defence statement is a better defence than your defence, as it tells the facts clearly and you can then use the witness statement later in the process to back up and support your defence.

Redx

Use the phrase promissory estoppel to show the site manager gave permission , Google it

The point in you doing 3 as best you can is that the members here will assist you in making it as good as possible

slick490

Le_Kirk said:

Use the word "waived" not waivered.  Your explanation below your defence statement is a better defence than your defence, as it tells the facts clearly and you can then use the witness statement later in the process to back up and support your defence.

How about this updated defence statement below? 

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.1       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question and liability is denied.

2.2 The Defendant works in the pharmacy which is located in a private residential area. 

2.3 The Defendant vehicle was parked in the bay outside of the pharmacy 

2.3 The parking restrictions were waived by the residential manager due to COVID.

2.4 The first PCN was issued and then the second before the Defendant knew about the reintroduction of the scheme

2.5 There was a failure to inform the Defendant of the reintroduction to the scheme.

  

3.  Accordingly the defendant believes that:
3.1. there was an agreement made between the manager, acting on behalf of the claimant, and the Defendant which allowed any obligations (if any) to be waived 

3.2 The Defendant had not been informed of the introduction of the obligations (if any) in advance, and as of when they would be enforced from
3.3. there was no obligation (at all) to display a permit

3.4 there was no clear signage to form a contract between the claimant and the defendant

Thank you again for your support!!

Fruitcake

Don't use sub-paragraph numbers.

Part of 3 are a repeat of parts of 2.

Use the legal term promissory estoppel as already advised.
You were given a licence to park by the manager, and you were not informed that your right to park had been removed or amended.

Why on earth hasn't the manager/your employer/the landowner got this cancelled? You are a keyworker. Have you complained to your MP about this yet? I would suggest you complain to Boris as well about this disgusting scam that is affecting keyworkers who are risking their own health during the pandemic in support of the NHS.
 

Le_Kirk

As @Fruitcake writes plus make your sentences in the sub-sections of paragraph 2 into one long(er) conjoined sentence and you remove the need to have sub-paragraphs.  Agree parts of 2 are repeated in 3.  Also it is a DEFENCE not a DEFENCE STATEMENT

slick490

Hopefully its a little better:

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question and liability is denied.

2.1 The Defendant works in the pharmacy which is located in a private residential area. The vehicle was parked in the bay outside of the pharmacy.

2.2 The first PCN was issued and then the second before the Defendant knew about the reintroduction of the scheme where there was a failure to inform the Defendant of the reintroduction to the scheme.

  

3.  Accordingly the defendant believes that:
3.1. Promissory estoppel was made between the manager, acting on behalf of the claimant, and the Defendant which allowed any obligations (if any) to be waived 

3.2 The Defendant had not been informed of the introduction of the obligations (if any) in advance, and as of when they would be enforced from
3.3. there was no obligation (at all) to display a permit and no clear signage to form a contract between the claimant and the defendant

slick490

Fruitcake said:

Why on earth hasn't the manager/your employer/the landowner got this cancelled? You are a keyworker. Have you complained to your MP about this yet? I would suggest you complain to Boris as well about this disgusting scam that is affecting keyworkers who are risking their own health during the pandemic in support of the NHS.
 

I'm not sure how I would go about complaining to Boris, besides I have way too much on my plate right now to be complaining to him about it!

slick490

Redx said:

The point in you doing 3 as best you can is that the members here will assist you in making it as good as possible

Thanks! I've been apprehensive as I don't want to come across as idiotic when it comes to these things haha,

im posting more regularly now though.

Redx

2.1 add , with the permission of the pharmacy manager due to covid19 obligations

Make it clear 

Yes you must be concise but must clarify your defence , it's the sole reason you parked there

It is better that you write as best you can and be constantly corrected numerous times , because like the pandemic it evolves over time , eventually becoming the best defence you can submit

slick490

Hopefully final draft from me? Going to submit this tonight !

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question and liability is denied.

2.1 The Defendant works in the pharmacy which is located in a private residential area. The vehicle was parked in the bay outside of the pharmacy with the permission of the site manager due to COVID 19 obligations.

2.2 The first PCN was issued and then the second before the Defendant knew about the reintroduction of the scheme where there was a failure to inform the Defendant of the reintroduction to the scheme.

  

3.  Accordingly the defendant believes that:
3.1. Promissory estoppel was made between the manager, acting on behalf of the claimant, and the Defendant which allowed any obligations (if any) to be waived 

3.2 The Defendant had not been informed of the introduction of the obligations (if any) in advance, and as of when they would be enforced from
3.3. there was no obligation (at all) to display a permit and no clear signage to form a contract between the claimant and the defendant