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

go-on-then

Of course the restaurant can help, they gave you permission to park there and now you have been scammed.  You should be going in there with the ticket,  show the ticket to the person that gave you permission to park and ask when they will be available to go to court should you have to go.  

I would imagine you are not the only one to have been caught at this site, have a Google and see what comes up.  Have you looked on TripAdvisor ?

Land registry to find out who owns a particular area of land, £3 for a search.  Or you could Google or go back and ask staff at the shops / restaurants for help in finding out.  

3.2 still doesnt make sense to me.

No need to waffle in a defence, it must be concise,  as long as you get all the facts then you can extend on those facts in your witness statement later on.  

You must use estoppel in your case.....The defendant was authorised by a senior member of staff at XXX restaurant,  witnessed by 5 (?) other members of the attending party,  to park on the site and therefore under the doctrine of promissory estoppel the Claimant has no cause of action to litigate in this matter.

Coupon-mad

I'd ask the restaurant who it is.

This isn't a sentence:

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.

YoungDriver123

Hi everyone thank you so much for the constructive criticism  as this will definitely make for better writing in the future, and greater understanding. 

I’ve learnt a lot.
in regards to the restaurant I will be going there  with my mother in person, and will ask them questions regarding the land owner etc. 

Updated Draft:

3.1 The driver, and five family members 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 a parking site created by a small surreptitious gap with no lighting present when entering the site.

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 to make the sign visible. The theme of lack of signage and appropriate lighting shown at the entrance is duplicated throughout the entire parking lot. 

3.2 It is submitted that because of the foreboding nature of the “permit holders only” signage,  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. As the sign is prohibiting in that there is not an offer to park for non permit holders, To say that a contract was offered to non permit holders is perverse. Under the doctorine of contract law the Claimant has no cause of action to litigate in this matter.

3.3 The driver was authorised by a senior member of staff at XXX restaurant,  witnessed by 5 family members of the attending party. With the terms of the agreement being the vehicle can be parked there for the duration of the meal. 

3.3.2 As this oral agreement was not broken, with terms followed by the driver. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel the Claimant has no cause of action to litigate in this matter.

Le_Kirk

YoungDriver123 said:

3.1.2 The entrance of the parking location has one, very imperceivable imperceptible sign which would be missed by any car driver due to the low positioning and no lighting to make the sign visible. The theme of lack of signage and appropriate lighting shown at the entrance is duplicated throughout the entire parking lot. 

3.2 It is submitted that because of the foreboding forbidding nature of the “permit holders only” signs signage,  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. As the sign is prohibiting in that there is not an offer to park for non permit holders, To to say that a contract was offered to non permit holders is perverse. Under the doctorine doctrine of contract law the Claimant has no cause of action to litigate in this matter.

Some changes suggested above.

go-on-then

And a couple more - 

3.3   The driver was authorised to park on Rigby Mews by a senior member of staff......

3.3.2  Take out the full stop and capital letter in the middle of the sentence.  Replace with a comma maybe.

go-on-then

A suggestion also for 3.1

.....The vehicle was parked on Rigby Mews,  a parking area behind xxx restaurant,  which is accessed along an unlit alleyway between 2 nearby shops.

A parking site can't create a gap,  that doesn't read correctly.

When you do return to the restaurant to get them to get this cancelled,  take your receipt if you still have it.  I would imagine 5 people to have spent a fair amount in there and you should be telling them that you wont be returning,  will be telling all family and friends about the parking problem at this restaurant and will be leaving a poor review on TripAdvisor.

YoungDriver123

Hi everyone

Please see the below draft, should be able to go see the restaurant today. Only issue is we attended the restaurant 3-4 years ago... and paid in cash. Will still try nonetheless.
I have read recently a forum user lost because the Judge stated the defendant made no attempt to contact the parking company and wanted to proceed to court knowing this so sided with the parking company. As i have proof of attempting to contact DCB i thought i should quickly add this in. 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver in question but liability is denied. 

3.1 The driver, and five members of the attending party 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,  a parking area behind Wizz restaurant,  which is accessed along an unlit alleyway between 2 nearby shops

3.1.2 The entrance of the parking location has one, very imperceptible sign which would be missed by any driver due to the low positioning and no lighting to make the sign visible. The theme of lack of signage and appropriate lighting shown at the entrance is duplicated throughout the entire parking lot. 

3.2 It is submitted that because of the forbidding nature of the “permit holders only” signs, 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. As the sign is prohibiting in that there is not an offer to park for non permit holders, to say that a contract was offered to non permit holders is perverse. Under the doctrine of contract law the Claimant has no cause of action to litigate in this matter.

3.3 The driver was authorised to park on Rigby Mews by a senior member of staff and witnessed by 5 family members of the attending party. With the terms of the agreement being the vehicle can be parked there for the duration of the meal. 

3.3.2 As this oral agreement was not broken with terms followed by the driver, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel the Claimant has no cause of action to litigate in this matter.

3.4 The claimant has also received correspondence on the 27th May 2021 from the defendant regarding the alleged PCN. The email complained that the keeper had not received any letters prior to the letter received on the 18th May 2021 about intention to start legal proceedings. Keeper has asked for proof of these letters, and informed claimant that under the FCA consumer credit book why they should not be liable, this has not been responded too by the claimant. 

I am struggling to find the email to send this too? I need to send it too DCB Legal LTD (where can i findtheir email) and who else? 

YoungDriver123

Hey All, 
In double checking the forum i can see Coupon-Mad has responded to a similar question. So never mind with my last question.
"Coupon-mad said:

Not essential but a good idea:

paul@dcblegal.co.uk

danielle@

info@

all work."

Coupon-mad

There's also a new girl, shannon@ now!

DCBLegal are not the Claimant.  Reword it to make sense.

And please remove this horrible Americanism!

parking lot. 

go-on-then

3.3

......by a senior member of staff at Wizz Restaurant......