PARKING CHARGE - DCB LEGAL

Coupon-mad

I'm disappointed to see that you likely haven't done the search I gave you because you haven't found the words about 'unauthorised parking at' (as seen on umpteen G24 defence threads). Literally everywhere.

Remove this:

No PCN was "issued on 25/03/2020".

You didn't find that when you did the search I suggested (not in G24 defences in the last 4 weeks anyway).

Add to this as shown and call them paragraph 4 or 5 ... don't use odd number systems like (i). Obviously renumber the template after this:  

4.  The vehicle in question was a lease vehicle, leased by the defendant on behalf of his father, who was an employee of the family business. The vehicle in question was never driven by the defendant. Therefore, as a matter of law, it is impossible for the Defendant to be held liable under any statute or rule of law and the Claimant's legal representative has - deliberately or negligently - misled the court by citing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

5.  The Defendant denies any liability for the charge and indeed, given the claim is founded on the absurd reason 'Unauthorised parking At' (which is incoherent and not even a full sentence) it is apparent that there was no consideration. Nothing of value was offered to patrons whom this Claimant decided were 'unauthorised'.

HML2025

Coupon-mad said:

I'm disappointed to see that you likely haven't done the search I gave you because you haven't found the words about 'unauthorised parking at' (as seen on umpteen G24 defence threads). Literally everywhere.

Remove this:

No PCN was "issued on 25/03/2020".

You didn't find that when you did the search I suggested (not in G24 defences in the last 4 weeks anyway).

Add to this as shown and call them paragraph 4 or 5 ... don't use odd number systems like (i). Obviously renumber the template after this:  

4.  The vehicle in question was a lease vehicle, leased by the defendant on behalf of his father, who was an employee of the family business. The vehicle in question was never driven by the defendant. Therefore, as a matter of law, it is impossible for the Defendant to be held liable under any statute or rule of law and the Claimant's legal representative has - deliberately or negligently - misled the court by citing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

5.  The Defendant denies any liability for the charge and indeed, given the claim is founded on the absurd reason 'Unauthorised parking At' (which is incoherent and not even a full sentence) it is apparent that there was no consideration. Nothing of value was offered to patrons whom this Claimant decided were 'unauthorised'.

I honestly did my best to utilise the information and direction provided by you, but it's a bit of a minefield for those of us with no forum experience and/or understanding of the acronyms used here. The whole thing has been a struggle, if I'm honest. 

No sob story here, but my dad is currently terminally ill with cancer, my 36 year old wife has had cancer twice in 18mths and I'm struggling to run our family business because my head and my concentration just isn't right at the minute. 

But I'm very grateful to you both for your help. 

Coupon-mad

I get it, sadly from personal experience.

I wish you all well and at least the defence is ready to sign and email now.