Courtesy Car Claim Form Gladstone’s Defence

Suzy_1

Le_Kirk said:

Suzy_1 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Suzy_1 said:

If you can’t it’s ok I’ll carry on digging. All I’m asking now is shall I include this in my defence or leave it to witness statement? 

If you are going to use the doctrine of promissory estoppel (when someone acting on behalf of the car park/area you parked gave you permission), you need to introduce it in your defence and then back it up with evidence in your witness statement.

Just thinking isn't it same thing as the agreement that I've mentioned-without using the word in paragraph 5 of my defence explaining that there was an agreement between the landowner and the business owner?

Yes but it doesn't hurt to point it out using the correct term; I assume you are not a lawyer (and neither am I) but we are both capable of asking Auntie Google!

Thank you Le_Kirk you’re right Auntie Google has been good to me. So if I change the paragraph 5 accordingly and add the word as below do you think it sounds better:

5. The Claimant should be aware that an arrangement was made for employees to park in the gated residential car park behind the business between the Landowner and the business owner (same landowner for both the business and the residential car park), consequently the employees were provided with the gate code. It is the defendant’s position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. Therefore, the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

What do you think?  

KeithP

Suzy_1 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Suzy_1 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Suzy_1 said:

If you can’t it’s ok I’ll carry on digging. All I’m asking now is shall I include this in my defence or leave it to witness statement? 

If you are going to use the doctrine of promissory estoppel (when someone acting on behalf of the car park/area you parked gave you permission), you need to introduce it in your defence and then back it up with evidence in your witness statement.

Just thinking isn't it same thing as the agreement that I've mentioned-without using the word in paragraph 5 of my defence explaining that there was an agreement between the landowner and the business owner?

Yes but it doesn't hurt to point it out using the correct term; I assume you are not a lawyer (and neither am I) but we are both capable of asking Auntie Google!

Thank you Le_Kirk you’re right Auntie Google has been good to me. So if I change the paragraph 5 accordingly and add the word as below do you think it sounds better:

5. The Claimant should be aware that an arrangement was made for employees to park in the gated residential car park behind the business between the Landowner and the business owner (same landowner for both the business and the residential car park), consequently the employees were provided with the gate code. It is the defendant’s position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. Therefore, the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

What do you think?  

I would change the order or words in that para 5.
At the moment it looks like the the site of the residential car park is between the landowner and the business.
Que??

How about...
5. The Claimant should be aware that an arrangement was in place between the Landowner and the business owner (same landowner for both the business and the residential car park), which allowed employees to park in the gated residential car park behind the business. Employees were provided with the gate code. It is the defendant’s position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. Therefore, the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

Le_Kirk

With @KeithP's changes, I would go with it.

Suzy_1

KeithP said:

Suzy_1 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Suzy_1 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Suzy_1 said:

If you can’t it’s ok I’ll carry on digging. All I’m asking now is shall I include this in my defence or leave it to witness statement? 

If you are going to use the doctrine of promissory estoppel (when someone acting on behalf of the car park/area you parked gave you permission), you need to introduce it in your defence and then back it up with evidence in your witness statement.

Just thinking isn't it same thing as the agreement that I've mentioned-without using the word in paragraph 5 of my defence explaining that there was an agreement between the landowner and the business owner?

Yes but it doesn't hurt to point it out using the correct term; I assume you are not a lawyer (and neither am I) but we are both capable of asking Auntie Google!

Thank you Le_Kirk you’re right Auntie Google has been good to me. So if I change the paragraph 5 accordingly and add the word as below do you think it sounds better:

5. The Claimant should be aware that an arrangement was made for employees to park in the gated residential car park behind the business between the Landowner and the business owner (same landowner for both the business and the residential car park), consequently the employees were provided with the gate code. It is the defendant’s position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. Therefore, the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

What do you think?  

I would change the order or words in that para 5.
At the moment it looks like the the site of the residential car park is between the landowner and the business.
Que??

How about...
5. The Claimant should be aware that an arrangement was in place between the Landowner and the business owner (same landowner for both the business and the residential car park), which allowed employees to park in the gated residential car park behind the business. Employees were provided with the gate code. It is the defendant’s position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. Therefore, the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

You guys are a god send. Thank you. 

I’ve now amended it to as above. 

5. The Claimant should be aware that an arrangement was in place between the Landowner and the business owner (same landowner for both the business and the residential car park), which allowed employees to park in the gated residential car park behind the business. Employees were provided with the gate code. It is the defendant’s position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. Therefore, the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

So I’m now sending it by email to CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk

Thank you so much for everyone helped me on this thread and forum, honestly I can’t thank you enough. 

I will however will need help later for the witness statement but first let me do my research and come back after. 

Xx

Redx

Email it to the lawyers acting for the claimant too

Check for an auto generated email receipt from the CCBC acknowledging receipt of the Defence

Check your MCOL claim history next week to ensure its been logged ,

Check next month if a DQ has been posted by the CCBC

Follow the 12 steps in the defence template thread , you are nowhere near a witness statement , but you are near numerous other steps ( emailing the defence is not your only job )

Good luck

Suzy_1

Redx said:

Email it to the lawyers acting for the claimant too

Check for an auto generated email receipt from the CCBC acknowledging receipt of the Defence

Check your MCOL claim history next week to ensure its been logged ,

Check next month if a DQ has been posted by the CCBC

Follow the 12 steps in the defence template thread , you are nowhere near a witness statement , but you are near numerous other steps ( emailing the defence is not your only job )

Good luck

Thank you Redx. Yes I’m going step by step thanks to this forum. Xx 

Coupon-mad

Very good, and yes, also send that email to the hire firm.  Many have a policy to cancel if a PCN is cancelled so you will at least have opened a complaint by contacting them now.

Then, in the event that the PPC discontinues and cancels (very common around WS stage) or if you have a hearing in 2022 and win, then you can puck up the thread of your complaint to the hire firm then and ask them to refund the admin fee as the PCN was cancelled.

Suzy_1

Coupon-mad said:

Very good, and yes, also send that email to the hire firm.  Many have a policy to cancel if a PCN is cancelled so you will at least have opened a complaint by contacting them now.

Then, in the event that the PPC discontinues and cancels (very common around WS stage) or if you have a hearing in 2022 and win, then you can puck up the thread of your complaint to the hire firm then and ask them to refund the admin fee as the PCN was cancelled.

Coupon-mad said:

Very good, and yes, also send that email to the hire firm.  Many have a policy to cancel if a PCN is cancelled so you will at least have opened a complaint by contacting them now.

Then, in the event that the PPC discontinues and cancels (very common around WS stage) or if you have a hearing in 2022 and win, then you can puck up the thread of your complaint to the hire firm then and ask them to refund the admin fee as the PCN was cancelled.

Thank Coupon-mad. Is following letter ok to send to the hire firm?

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I write in regards to the letter/email dated xxx 2019 that I have received in relation to my rental of a car for the period of xxx 2019 to xxx 2019 with contract number xxx.

 

As detailed in this letter, a £35 admin fee has been deducted from my credit card. The documentation that you have provided in support of this transaction is a speculative and unenforceable invoice from a private company called UKCPM Ltd for a “Parking Charge Notice” for an “alleged breach of the advertised terms and conditions” on xxx 2019.

 

In the terms and conditions of hire quoted on your website athttps://enterprise.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/1291975/1308756967/redirect/1 section 4d on charges states that I agree to pay you:

"A reasonable administration fee for processing any fines or offences against the Vehicle, you or us during the rental period, unless caused through our own fault".

 

The invoice issued by UKPCM is not a Penalty Charge Notice, nor is it a fine, nor any kind of notification of traffic offence. It has not been issued by any UK authority and was not issued as a result of a contravention of any current UK traffic legislation. It is therefore not covered under the terms of my rental agreement with Enterprise and Enterprise had no authority to charge my credit card for any admin fee as there was no requirement on Enterprise to take any action on receipt of this invoice.

 

Due to those reasons given above the charges against my credit card were unauthorised and should be immediately refunded.

 

I also refer you to the enclosed article on private parking, which can also be found here:http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2009/5/28/question-private-parking-fines-fleets-urged/30698/ . I am surprised that a large company such as yourselves would fall for this well-known trick and I am sure that you will want to rectify your error asap.

 

Kind regards

Thanks 

1505grandad

Still have two ppc names 

Suzy_1

1505grandad said:

Still have two ppc names 

I have actually corrected the mistake on my copy. This is copied from my previous post sorry.