We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Not inside the lines
Comments
-
Apologies, that wasn't meeant to come across as belligerent - I'm just more confused than I previously was
( 0 -
I've read ALL of the threads I can find concerning DCB Legal and have redrafted my Para 3 yet again. Is this better?
3. The claimant states that the defendant's vehicle was Not ParkedCorrectly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space. No suchcondition was present on any parking sign at the site. TheClaimant cannot later 'clarify' the desired meaning of the signsand attempt to hold the defendant to a term not available to themat the time the alleged contract was formed. Contra Preferentumthe sign must be interpreted in the way most favourable to thedefendant. The CRA (2015) further protects the defendant bystating that 'If a term in a consumer contract could havedifferent meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to theconsumer is to prevail'. It is submitted that the bulk claim is sotrifling and ridiculous that it amounts to de minimis and iscomplete waste of the court's time. In any case, the signage theclaimant relies upon on site is in such miniscule text andinstalled 8 feet up in the air that it is highly insufficient. Nomotorist could be said to have have agreed and entered into, letalone breached, such a poorly designed and illegible contract. Inaddition, the signs were only present on alternate rows of baysand not present at all in the row where the defendant parked.0 -
OK, but too long and contains whinging or irrelevance, please stick to the core details in that paragraph, no need to state what the POC says, just rebut the allegation
It needs to be concise and to the point in order that your defence fits into the 122 lines in the MCOL defence box1 -
If you do use any of it, the correct phrase is "Contra Proferentem"2
-
'Miniscule' - correct spelling = minuscule.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street2 -
Thank you to all contributors - errors corrected and defence submitted today. Now to await the telephone mediation
) 2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.5K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards


