DCB Legal Claim Form- PCN from parking with authorization from a restaurant on the road in front,

YoungDriver123

Coupon-mad said:

(signs used a white background i remember reading one post and saw this is a breach of TMA? As they use white background similar to councils can't remember so have not included this point as of yet.

The above isn't relevant so don't include it.

15 is not needed as those court cases are old news and in fact a matching case was appealed and overturned (Semark Jullien) and I already cover that later in the template.

The sentence 'an agreement was agreed to' is a bit clunky and you should make more of that and cut right down on what you say about the signs.  At this stage you only need to say they were unlit and incapable of forming a contract (you can expand later at WS stage).

Thank you for your reply! 

In regards to the driver getting an agreement to park in the space, should I mention how many people saw this, the terms they said (park in this space until you finish), what legal stand point should I mention sorry? 

Also when you say cut right down to signage do you mean remove some points? 

Thanks a million.

Coupon-mad

Remove 90%.  Make it really concise.  Just put what I said about signs, plus what you just said about the detail of the permission and who said it/how many in your party heard it.

Le_Kirk

YoungDriver123 said:

 what legal stand point should I mention sorry? 

Also when you say cut right down to signage do you mean remove some points? 

Defences should be short, sharp and punchy and consist of legal/technical arguments, leaving the story for the witness statement (WS).  Providing you cover the main points in your defence you can provide back up and evidence at WS stage.  The term you are looking for is promissory estoppel.

YoungDriver123

Good Afternoon Everyone, 

I have made the points much more concise and focused on the legal terminology. I hope it is not as cluncky as it was before, Thanks for the help this far!

The defendant and the driver attended a restaurant on the date of the alleged offence. The restaurant is located on a main road with many other shops and restaurants located on the same main road called “Ilford Highroad”. The vehicle was parked on Rigby Mews which is an alleyway side road created by a small surreptitious gap with no lighting in the gap created between the two shops which lead the driver to the back of the restaurant the defendant, driver and company visited.  The entrance of the parking location especially in the evening where the alleged offence occurred, only has one very imperceivable sign which would be missed by any car due to the low positioning and no lighting whatsoever.

Not only is the lack of signage and lighting mimicked in the parking lot but, the entrance signs are incapable of forming a contract due to the forbidding nature of the “Permit holders only” signage at the entrance of the narrow side road.  It is submitted that if this notice is attempting to make a contractual offer, then as it is forbidding, they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

 Furthermore, once the defendant, driver and company arrived at the restaurant situated in front of Rigby Mews, with the cars parked behind the restaurant. The driver sought permission from an employee of the restaurant for the vehicle to park there for the duration of their meal. This Oral promise and permission that the driver can park their vehicle there was granted by an employee who even asked a senior member of staff for clarification and this was acknowledged by all five members of the group at the time.

It is submitted that, based on the reliance of the permission from the restaurant situated in the front of the parking lot, that the driver relied on said promise and permission, which has now caused them to be at a detriment in the form of a claim made against them for the sum of £282.64 to the parking management company. The permission made between the driver and the restaurant should be binding and enforceable, especially as the parking lot is on private land and permission was sought by the apparent land owner. As the driver only parked the vehicle for the duration of the meal which was the foundation of the permission as that promise/criteria was not broken between the driver and the restaurant there should be no contravention that occurred, as the ticket was given by Parking Control Management whom ate not the restaurant nor land owner, the defendant questions the right of the claimant to issue this claim.  

Le_Kirk

It still read more like a witness statement than a defence.  Also every paragraph requires a number.

go-on-then

Unless I have missed it, I cant see where you have been back to the restaurant to complain ??  What did they say ??

Have you complained to the landowner ??

YoungDriver123

Thanks Again Le_Kirk, I assumed i still required to paint a picture of the surrounding area to illustrate to the judge, this caused the extra writing in hopes of describing the case more in detail. I have now removed the extra sentences even more, and included numbers where 3.1 relates to point 3.1.2, and 3.3 relates to 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Is this the correct way to number these points?

I appreciate all the help so far everyone. This is due on Tuesday so hopefully this 3rd draft is okay? Still ready to improve if anyone has any points and tips to help me win.

3.1 The driver, and company attended a restaurant on the date of the alleged offence. The restaurant is located on a main road . The vehicle was parked on Rigby Mews which is an alleyway side road created by a small surreptitious gap with no lighting down the path.

3.1.2 The entrance of the parking location has one very imperceivable sign which would be missed by any car due to the low positioning and no lighting whatsoever.

3.2 Not only is the lack of signage and lighting mimicked in the parking lot with a lack of appropriate signage, lack of light. The entrance signs are incapable of forming a contract due to the forbidding nature of the “Permit holders only” signage at the entrance of the narrow path. It is submitted that if this notice is attempting to make a contractual offer, then as it is forbidding, they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

3.3 Furthermore, due to promissory estoppel nature which applies to this claim, as the driver sought permission from an employee of the restaurant for the vehicle to be parked there for the duration of their meal. This Oral promise and permission that the driver can park their vehicle there was granted by an employee and witnessed by five individuals.

3.3.1 It is submitted that, based on the reliance of the permission from the restaurant, that the driver relied on and the detriment in the form of the sum of £282.64 attempted to be claimed by the parking management company. The permission made between the driver and the restaurant should be binding and enforceable, with promissory estoppel to apply in the driver’s favour.

3.3.2 As the driver only parked the vehicle for the duration of the meal which was the foundation of the permission as that promise/criterion was not broken between the driver and the restaurant there should be no contravention that occurred, as the ticket was given by Parking Control Management whom are not the restaurant, nor the land owner, the defendant questions the right of the claimant to issue this claim.  

go-on-then

First sentence in 3.2 doesn't make sense ?? 

3.3.2  is too long and doesnt make sense ??

YoungDriver123

go-on-then said:

First sentence in 3.2 doesn't make sense ?? 

3.3.2  is too long and doesnt make sense ??

Sorry this should have read like this.. "Not only is the theme of lack of signage and lighting at the entrance copied in the car parking lot".

My point of 3.3.2 is to conclude the driver stayed at the restaurant for the agreed time, therefore the criteria of the permission was not broken between the driver and the restaurant so promissory estopell stands, so due to promissory estopell no case of trespassing or lack of permission can occur. Do you think i should mention this, or my use of promissory estopel stands? If so what point shall i focus on so i can re write it. 

Kind Regards

YoungDriver123

go-on-then said:

Unless I have missed it, I cant see where you have been back to the restaurant to complain ??  What did they say ??

Have you complained to the landowner ??

Hi Go-on-then, 

The restaurant seem to think they can't help at the moment when i explained the issue over the phone to them. I don't know who specifically is the landowner as the parking lot is situated behind multiple shops and restaurants. How would i be able to find out this information?