County court Business center UK Parking Control

Fruitcake

Bear in mind that you initially appealed to UKPC where you admitted that you were the driver. It would be very unwise now to say in your defence that you don't know who was driving, then sign a statement of truth to that effect.

I don't believe you have explained how you came to have been given the PCN in the first place if the works van was registered to a company at the time.

worksvanparkingticket

Fruitcake said:

Bear in mind that you initially appealed to UKPC where you admitted that you were the driver. It would be very unwise now to say in your defence that you don't know who was driving, then sign a statement of truth to that effect.

I don't believe you have explained how you came to have been given the PCN in the first place if the works van was registered to a company at the time.

there was Ticket on the van when we returned 

worksvanparkingticket

Should i just go back with promissory estoppel then ?

thanks again for all the help 

worksvanparkingticket

new defense below 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. The company the defendant worked for was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

 

 3. The family were visiting the retail park in a long wheelbase van with a bike rack on the rear that would not fit in any of the car parking spaces available. When they asked a UKPC employee in a hi viz jacket who was sitting in a UKPC marked van where they should park, they were advised to park where they did, as it would not cause an obstruction. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

4. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit

 

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

6. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated

Coupon-mad

2. The company the defendant worked for was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver.


(add the above, if true).

worksvanparkingticket

Coupon-mad said:

2. The company the defendant worked for was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver.


(add the above, if true).

Bear in mind that you initially appealed to UKPC where you admitted that you were the driver. It would be very unwise now to say in your defence that you don't know who was driving, then sign a statement of truth to that effect.

I don't believe you have explained how you came to have been given the PCN in the first place if the works van was registered to a company at the time.

Fruitcake

worksvanparkingticket said:

Fruitcake said:

Bear in mind that you initially appealed to UKPC where you admitted that you were the driver. It would be very unwise now to say in your defence that you don't know who was driving, then sign a statement of truth to that effect.

I don't believe you have explained how you came to have been given the PCN in the first place if the works van was registered to a company at the time.

there was Ticket on the van when we returned 

Did the driver appeal this ticket as driver instead of as hirer/lessee then? If so, it is such a shame because this could all have been avoided otherwise.

Fruitcake

worksvanparkingticket said:

Should i just go back with promissory estoppel then ?

thanks again for all the help 

Yes, and admit to being the driver in para 2, if true. 
Add the comment in bold to para 3.

Add a comment that the permission to park by the claimant's parking attendant was witnessed by (an)other occupant(s) of the vehicle at the material time, and they will provide a witness statement to this affect if the claimant fails to discontinue.

Apart form that, it looks okay to me, but leave it for others to comment on if you have time before the submission deadline.

new defense below 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. The company the defendant worked for was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

 

 3. The defendant and their family were visiting the retail park in a long wheelbase van with a bike rack on the rear that would not fit in any of the car parking spaces available. When they asked a UKPC employee in a hi viz jacket who was sitting in a UKPC marked van where they should park, they were advised to park where they did, as it would not cause an obstruction. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

4. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit

 

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

6. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated

worksvanparkingticket

Hi Defense all emailed to  CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

thanks again for all the help fingers crossed 

Umkomaas

worksvanparkingticket said:

Hi Defense all emailed to  CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

thanks again for all the help fingers crossed 

Have you had an auto-response confirming its receipt - should be pretty soon after submission. Please check junk/spam file if not received.