I need advice on parking dispute on domestic private land

The issue is a management company that manages land and flats next to where I live is trying to stop me parking on land my family has parked on for over 20 years. It also includes access to the rear of my property

My brother lives in within a small cul de sac which has 5 bungalows and 3 blocks of maisonettes. He bought it in 2004 from our parents who had lived there since the late 1990s. The bungalows are privately owned and the maisonettes are managed by A Management Company (MC). Our family have lived in this property for over twenty years and have never had any problems with neighbours or parking. On most days, there are plenty of parking spaces available and my brother’s vehicle is not causing an issue for any residents of the maisonettes to his knowledge other than one neighbour.
When this property was purchased all road, pavement and associated grass areas at the front and rear of the maisonettes and bungalows (The Estate) and on street parking throughout the Estate were maintained by the local Council as far as we are aware. Residents and visitors, including our family, have always parked somewhere along the cul de sac or along the rear highway. In fact, our father rented a garage at the rear of the bungalow for a number of years. Until 2009, there was on street parking along the cul de sac outside the 5 bungalows and the three blocks of maisonettes as well as another public highway at the rear of the bungalows/one block of maisonettes. Adjacent to my brother’s bungalow, there was tarmac hardstanding to the front of the maisonettes which was inaccessible by vehicles due to concrete enclosures. Throughout the entire time of ownership, there has been no access or parking issues anywhere on the public road or anywhere within the cul de sac estate.
In 2009 MC submitted a Planning application that was approved for the provision of off street car parking for the Estate. This was always understood to be the entire estate of five bungalows and three blocks of maisonettes.An issue has developed since the summer of last year when the neighbour in question who lives in one of the Maisonettes began hand delivering notices and putting notices on my brother’s car and any visitors’ cars who came to see him. Notices were not put on any other cars that came into the Estate. We are.aware of cars being parked in this area for several weeks without any notice being placed on their windscreen. There has also been a number of caravans that have been parked on this land that did not have any notices on them for many months to our knowledge. These notices threatened a parking charge of £50 per day for parking and in some cases threatened to have vehicles towed away. The notices stated that this neighbour was a Director of MC.
My brother tried to ignore the neighbour as he was aware that he had also been vexacious to other neighbours throughout the cul de sac. The neighbour has repeatedly caused harassment through face to face altercations to both my brother and my elderly disabled father of 92 years of age who, whilst visiting the defendant also received these parking fine notices on his vehicle. The neighbour has also installed a number of outdoor cameras with a range that includes both my brother’s bungalow and his neighbouring bungalows gardens and paved areas, which are all privately owned and not managed by MC. This is extremely stressful to my brother who is disabled and suffers from mental health issues following a major traffic accident. He is finding these cameras not only intrusive but excessive, unjustified and unnecessary in relation to legitimate purpose.
In November, my brother began receiving legal letters from a law firm threatening legal action and a claim has now been lodged against by brother for “trespassing by parking on land leased to the Claimant and has refused to cease parking when requested. A final injunction is sought.I have been looking into this for him as he is on disability benefit and cannot afford legal advice. It has been very difficult to get advice at the moment as many organisations are working with skeleton staff. I have reviewed the Planning approval and have noted some areas that I would like to seek further clarification / guidance on.
Planning Approval for the Provision of Off Street Car Parking1.1. We are aware that on 15th October 2009, a Planning Application 09/2090/FUL was granted for the Provision of additional off street car parking. The applicant was MC who sought planning permission for the “provision of additional off street car parking”. The Location of the proposal was stated as ‘Land at (XXXXXX Gardens, XXXXXs. This location does not specify any particular land other than ‘land at XXXXX Gardens’.
1.2. The application site was described as ‘a residential cul de sac located off the main highway of XXXXX Road,XXXXXX. This estate consists of bungalows and blocks of maisonettes, with tarmac hardstanding to the front, which is inaccessible by vehicles at present, due to concrete enclosures’.

My brother resides in one of the bungalows within this residential cul de sac estate and as such understood, along with his neighbours that this application was for the ‘estate’ and not just for the maisonettes. The application site/estate describes the entire cul de sac and not just the blocks of maisonettes managed by MC.
1.3. The main planning considerations of this application included…….. “the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and highway safety issues”. We are aware that the grass verge areas at the front of the maisonettes has been converted to parking places. This is where the on street parking was that my brother used and subsequently has used since the land was converted. He has never received any notification prior to these recent parking notices advising of any changes to parking provisions. My brother has spoken to residents of other bungalows in the Estate and has been advised that they have not received any communication relating to the parking areas in question either. There has also been no signs of Private Parking or Car Parking Management Notices displayed throughout the time my brother has lived in the property.1.4. The Planning report concluded: “Overall the development is in keeping with the premises and immediate area and does not involve any ‘significant loss of amenity for the residents of the neighbouring properties’ and is acceptable in terms of highway safety”. We dispute that the parking is for the maisonettes only. If this application was not for the entire estate i.e. XXXXXX Gardens cul de sac – then this application would have had a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties as the road was accessible for parking to the general public and all residents of the bungalows/maisonettes within the entire estate.. If this application was solely for the use of certain residents, this has not been stated throughout the planning process., also if this did not include parking facilities for his property and the remaining four bungalows within the Estate, it is deemed that there is a significant loss of amenity for the residents as the additional off street car parking would involve removing around 95% of on street car parking throughout the estate. There is also considerable cause for concern for future sales of the bungalows within the Estate as this would be restricting parking and access to the rear of the properties.
1.5. There is a telephone court hearing on Friday 29th May that my brother had requested to be adjourned, however the judge wants to hear the case and consider the adjournment at the same time. My brother does not have funds for legal support and I will be taking the telephone call as ‘Litigation Friend’. I am looking for advice and support.

It was originally listed for the claimant to determine the issue but we asked for an adjournment to seek advice. The new hearing is that the defendants application notice is listed for hearing at the same time as the relocated adjourned hearing

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the defendants application and to give directions

D application is to adjourn as we need time to build defence and cannot contact relevant parties during lockdown. We are the D. We are looking for advice on the strength of our case and planning /permissive rights/counter compensation claim for loss of amenity to rear of bungalow etc

It was listed in April to hear C case then D made request to adjourn. New date may 29th. D requested further adjournment but judge wants to hear D application and give directions

I would like your opinion on the document I sent you. If I have been parking in an area for over 20 years but planning was approved for off street parking on land within the “ Estate”, for “the Estate” to alleviate parking problems and then 11 years later after the creation of parking places, I begin receiving parking notices for parking in those spaces or driving through the Estate to the rear of my property, followed by threat of court action for an injunction to stop my access - what recourse do I have?

I am not sure who you mean - gave permission - I have attached the title plans of the area managed by the management company CE69969 and my brother's title plan TES10707. As you can see my brother's property is the end bungalow in a block of 5 adjacent to the 3 blocks of maisonettes managed by the management company. I have also attached a draft defence statement document that I have created to support my search for legal advice. I have a copy of the planning application and the approval if you need to see this but I have included the pertinent points in the defence statement. There has never been a reason to seek permission from anyone as the roads, footpaths and parking facilities where in the public domain when the property was purchased by my family in 1998. The planning application that was submitted by the management company back in 2009 was for land that was grassed area on land leased by the management company, however the planning application was for a proposal for 'off street parking for the estate of XXX Gardens (which is the name of the entire estate and not just the maisonettes) to alleviate parking issues for the Estate of XXX Gardens.

Jamie, Firstly thank you very much for your prompt responses. This is a very worrying time for myself and my brother.
What began as what we think is a vexacious claim by a resident who happens to be a Director of the Management Company (albeit, the directors have/or still are owners of the maisonettes/flats against the Defendant has now opened up a whole array of more serious issues.The key areas that I seek advice on are
1. Discrepancy issue over who has the rights to park in the 29 parking spaces as these spaces were approved and created to provide off street parking to the 'Estate' to alleviate parking for the 'Estate. The creation of these parking spaces had reduced the on street parking facility by over approximately 75-80%. The Claimant states that these parking spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of the residents of Title Plan CE69969 and their visitors or agents, however there has been no statement of this in the planning application, has not been communicated to all the residents of XXX gardens, nor any notices or road markings to state this.
2. The Claimant has been the management agent for 1-40 XXX Gardens for many years, however it is only within the last 12 months that the Claimant (represented by a resident of XXX Gardens) has made this claim that my brother or his visitors are trespassing by parking their vehicles. We are also aware that the Claimant's representative has began sending letters to another neighbour advising that the neighbour is trespassing by walking his dog along the footpath on the main road in front of 1-40 XXX Gardens. The Claimant's representative is an elderly man who worked for many years as a legal executive and the Defendant avers that the Claimant will continue to cause undue stress and anxiety to the Defendant and his family, including his 92 year old father, both of whom are disabled. There has already been an altercation where the Claimant's representative walked up the Defendant's garden path and began arguing with the Defendant's 92 year old father. There has been no issues for over 20 years relating to parking until this vexacious claim made by the representative. Is there any recourse that can be taken?
3. If an injunction was granted, this would effectively remove the facility for driving on the road and parking at the rear of the Defendants property. It would also remove the facility for any deliveries to be made to the rear of the property. This would also raise arguments around public safety in terms of displaced car parking on grass verges and narrow areas of the road.
4. The Estate has several empty parking spaces both day and night and the Defendant has spoken to several neighbours as to whether his vehicle is causing any harm to them. What harm is the vehicle causing and to whom?
5. Do permissive rights exist? Have they already been accrued? How is this established?
6. If the Defendant does not succeed in defending this case, then there will be a detrimental loss to the value of his property at the point of resale as there will be no access to the rear of the property. What recourse is/could be available? Could a counter claim be made for compensation?
7. There are untruthful statements in the Particulars of Claim such as section 2.1 that states " Title number CE69969 consist of a number of flats let to tenants, along with common parts which are accessible by all residents (the common parts). The buildings on the land CE69969 consist of 3 buildings housing maisonettes and flats that have been purchased as leasehold owners with some of the properties being rented to tenants. The Defendant is aware that some of the property owners do not know that this legal challenge is being made and costs covered from the Management company fees that they pay annually. There are also owner residents who do not have a vehicle and have granted the Defendant permission to park in a parking space if desired.
8. The claimant is claiming suffering for loss and damage, however the Defendant is unaware of what loss or damage has been suffered?
The Claimant is claiming 'unable to fulfil its management duties effectively due to the Defendant's actions.' Clarification is required as to how the Defendant's actions are causing this? The agreement between the Leaseholders and the Management Company does not detail any duties relating to parking?

There was quite a mix up from the courts who have admitted their error. The solicitor DAS Law advised a copy of draft unsigned pleadings on 29.1.20. We then received a general form of judgement or order 1.4.20 from the courts which didn’t tell us anything. We rang the courts and were advised that the court had listed a hearing for 17.4.20 and gave us verbal details of the claim, advising us to gain legal advice. We have been trying to seek legal advice as my brother cannot financially afford to instruct a solicitor but due to Covid citizens advice are unavailable. We requested for the hearing to be adjourned to enable us to gain legal advice and it was rescheduled for 29.5.20. As we had no details of the claim other than the 1 page general form of judgement or order, we contacted the courts who advised we should have received a court pack with the claim form, particulars of claim etc. They apologised and sent a copy which was received 1.5.20. There was no acknowledgement or document to defend the claim so we contacted the courts to ask for another adjournment but the judge has said she wants it to ahead on Friday 29.5.20. With no legal knowledge or legally trained I am going to apply to be a Litigation friend to represent my brother but need guidance on how to address the court and what to say. This will be the first time I have been involved in a legal case and am also disabled and hard of hearing so as you can imagine, this is all extremely stressful

Why is the statement of truth wrong ? Is this in my draft defence document?

Thanks for the information about the Statement of Truth. I just used the same wording as DAS Law had used when drawing up the Claimant's Particulars of Claim which had a statement of Truth signed at the end of the document by the Claimant. So is the Claimant's statement of Truth wrong too ?

I dont know how to instruct a public access barrister? What is a public access barrister? My brother cannot afford to instruct any legal person who will charge as he is on benefits. I contacted Citizens Advice and they said that they had no one who could help at the moment as they were not operating fully but they sent me a link to Fairleys Solicitors. I contacted Fairleys on their live chat on two occasions and they said they would get someone to contact me but no one has. I have contacted a number of solicitors on the telephone to see if I could get a feww 30 minute telephone meeting but have not been successful. I have contacted Just answer previously to this and was advised that as the land is owned by someone else then it is trespass. since that time, I have found out more information and this is why I have come back to Just answer. I have send emails to local councillors, planning officers and today I was going to email my local MP. Without legal training, I do not how to approach this. It is a nightmare but if left unchallenged, my brother could lose the facility to park at the rear of his property.

We were told by a solicitor that this would not be covered under Legal Aid - Is that correct? We are now starting to get conflicting advice so I am really struggling here

We were asking for the hearing to be adjourned so that we could get free legal advice from Citizens advice etc when they are able to take the calls or if we could get free legal advice from a law firm/charity or Just answer. I have raised a number of issues today including advice on permissive rights, counter claims, defending the claim etc.What I have been asking is if you could provide your assessment on this case and whether you feel my brother has a case to defend, on what grounds and on how to proceed.

on the Gov site - it suggests that legal aid could be available for civil cases. Is that not the case?

Thats the issue - is it a parking dispute, trespass or just an awkward neighbour? I have sent you two photos from my phone but I dont know if you have received them. I will try to upload on here

The POC has personal data on both sides and this is a public site. Is there a link I can send direct to you?

The “defence draft document” is just a document I created to provide the background of the case to help me explain the case. Is it wrong to call it that? Do I need to draw up a defence document for the courts and if so is there a protocol for it.

I will try to summarise what I think the defence is. I was hoping for help in identifying what grounds I could use for defence.

We have parked on the land at the rear since 1998 when my father first bought the bungalow and continued to park there when my brother purchased the bungalow from my father in 2004. We originally parked at the front of the flats in the on -road parking spaces until the planning was approved to develop off road parking for the “estate” detailed in the planning application as “ consisting of bungalows and blocks of maisonettes “. We had enquired with a neighbour who was the representative of the management company until he passed away about parking and he had said it was fine to park there as the parking spaces were to reduce the number of vehicles parked along the highway and footpath. We have never been approached about this being a potential basis until last year.

Are there any free legal clinics who could possibly represent my brother at Fridays telephone hearing?

I am preparing a statement to defend the claim and will forward tomorrow. I would be grateful for your advice and comments

It says rate expert to finish so will I lose the link

Good Morning Jamie, I agree it is extremely late to instruct but as we only received the POC on 1st May, we did not have details of what the actual claim was. We thought it was for ‘Breach of Contract’ as the Claimant had been sending ‘Contract Notices’ of £50 per day for parking, payable immediately or legal action would be taken for breach of contract. It was only when we received the POC that it was clearly defined as ‘Trespass’. Since that time, we have been actively pursuing as many avenues as we could to gain advice and assistance. We have tried ‘Just Ask’ 3 times and you have been the most helpful.
From letters received from the Claimant’s solicitor and the Court, it appears that there is a discrepancy over whether this is a part 7 or part 8 claim. The solicitor is asking for the case to be heard as a part 7 but the judge has ordered that it is to be heard under a Part 8 claim. I have attached two letters relating to this. I think that they did not expect my brother to challenge this claim
Question: Can you explain what the difference is between the two please?When we received the documents from the court, there was no Acknowledgement of Service or Defence/Witness statement documentation –
Question: Should there have been?I am currently writing up a defense statement but need clarification as to whether I should have had an Acknowledgement of Service form and indeed should I have completed this and returned it?
Question: Could you please confirm.Do I need to submit a Defence statement before Friday’s telephone court hearing and if so, do I need to send a copy to the Claimant’s solicitor and the Courts?
Question: Could you please confirm.In terms of what the defence is: I have tried to be as succinct as possible and categorized it into 14 key points in a defense statement in preparation for court.:-I understand that this is all at the eleventh hour but as I said my brother is disabled and has mental health issues so is not very capable with dealing with this so I am trying to assist as best I can and we have only had 23 days since receipt of the actual POC.
Any advice gratefully received. Particularly if you think we have strong enough arguments.

The system will not all me to send attachments - any ideas?

I have had to copy and paste the document on here as the system will now allow me to upload any attachments1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to injunctive relief or damages in lieu of an injunction or damages, or at all. The Claimant is put to strict proof of what the loss and damage suffered as a consequence of the Defendant’s actions is and also how the Claimant is unable to fulfil its management duties effectively due to the Defendant’s action.2. The Defendant acknowledges that he has been parking for over 20 years on the freehold land at the rear of his property managed by the Claimant or within the on street parking within the Estate that was removed due to the introduction of the Parking Spaces.
3. The Defendant’s father had been given permission by Mr Christopher Prosser of 1 Carmel Gardens, Norton Stockton on Tees in 1999, who at that time was acting in the capacity of the Managing Agent for Carmel Gardens Management Ltd, to park on the freehold land as long as he did not cause an obstruction. When the Defendant bought the property from his father in 2004, he asked Mr Prosser if it was ok for him to now park on the freehold land and was given the same reply, that as long as he was not causing an obstruction, it was acceptable to park there.When the Defendant received invoices for parking from the Claimant, he spoke to a leaseholder of one of the maisonettes who gave him permission, that as a visitor to the leaseholder, it is acceptable for the Defendant to park his vehicle in a Parking Space.4. Although not stated in the POC, the Claimant has been issuing letters and Invoices between the period of April and October 2019 for ‘a contractual charge for parking in a private parking bay of £50 per day with payment due immediately or if unpaid, legal action will follow in 7 days’.The Claimant is put to strict proof that there is a contractual charge of £50 per day for parking in a parking space; that there is a contractual relationship between the parties and that there has been a material breach in the terms and conditions of such contract. The Defendant or any driver of a vehicle visiting the Defendant denies entering into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.5. The Parking Spaces in question have no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are, therefore no contract can be formed with the landowner or management agent. The Claimant is put to strict proof in identifying the material breach in the terms and conditions of contract as there is no signage erected at the site or any documentation that clearly states terms and conditions of contract provided to the Defendant. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant is capable of creating a legally binding contract.6. The Claimant states in the Particulars of Claim that they are engaged by the Freeholders, Crosslarch Ltd to undertake certain obligations and provide certain services under the Lease appended as POC02. POC02 is a Land Registry title document for a property owned by the Defendant. POC03 is a Lease dated 28 March 1985 between Crosslarch Ltd and the Claimant.The Claimant is put to strict proof that they are engaged to enforce certain obligations and provide certain services under the Lease detailed in POC03 in relation to parking on land owned by Crosslarch Ltd and to (a) issue Invoices for contractual charges, (b) bring proceedings in its own name, (c) it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land where the vehicle has been parked, and (d) that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue invoices for contractual parking charges and to pursue payment by means of litigation.7. The Claimant states that Title No. CE69969 consists of a number of flats let to tenants, along with common parts which are accessible by all residents (‘the Common Parts’). The Defendant asserts that this statement in the POC is misleading inasmuch that Title No. CE69969 is Freehold land owned by Crosslarch Ltd, consisting of flats and maisonettes that are privately owned by individuals, some of which are privately rented out to tenants; and that the Claimant is merely the Management Agent.8. The Claimant asserts in the POC section 7 that “the Common Parts include 29 parking spaces (‘The Parking Spaces’). The Parking Spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of the residents of No. CE69969 and their visitors or agents. The Defendant has no right or permission to park in the Parking Spaces”.The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Parking Spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of the residents of No CE69969 as there is no signage situated across the Site. As there are no signs communicating this to any motorist, an objective observer would consider that the performance of parking in this area is a unilateral offer of parking to any motorist entering the Cul de Sac.

9. The legal challenge of Trespass was introduced in a letter from the Claimant’s solicitor threatening legal action for ‘Trespassing’ on 18 November 2019. The Defendant denies Trespassing as consent was granted as detailed in point 3 of the Defence Statement.10. The Defendant claims that the Parking Spaces are not ‘Exclusively for the residents of 1-40 Carmel Gardens in accordance with the Planning Application 09/2090/FUL that was submitted in 2009 to Stockton Borough Council and the associated planning approval granted.The Defendant asserts that the application was for the ‘Provision of additional off street car parking’ as detailed in the planning documentation which states for a location known as ‘Land at Carmel Gardens, Norton Stockton on Tees with the application site being detailed as ‘A residential cul de sac located off the main highway of South Road, Norton.
The Claimant documents in the planning application that “the Estate consists of bungalows and blocks of maisonettes with tarmac hardstanding to the front, which is inaccessible by vehicles at present, due to concrete enclosures”.The Claimant is put to strict proof that this application and approval was for additional off street car parking for the residents of No 1-40 only within the estate and not 1-45 of the Estate as implied in the planning documentation.11. The Defendant avers that the representative for the Claimant is a fellow neighbour bringing a vexatious litigation following repetitive harassment to the Defendant and his visitors. The harassment began when the Defendant was having his bathroom suite replaced and had the old bathroom suite in his front garden waiting for collection. The Claimant’s representative knocked on the Defendant’s door complaining in an aggressive manner about unsightly mess on the Defendant’s front lawn and asked for it to be moved as soon as possible. The Defendant explained that a skip had been ordered so that the waste could be removed. Shortly after this, the Claimant entered the Defendant’s land, demanding that the Defendant remove his car from private land or he would arrange for it be recovered.The Claimant’s representative has now installed CCTV cameras recording the entire cul de sac, with one camera pointing directly at the Defendant’s property which the Defendant considers to be intimidating and intrusive. The representative is sending letters and using images from these photographs to harass both the Defendant and other neighbours.The Claimant’s representative is parking on the extremely limited on street parking available within the Estate albeit there are several off street parking spaces available on a daily basis.12. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant’s solicitor on 8 April 2020 to offer an opportunity to consider an Alternative Dispute Resolution but has not been afforded a response.13. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action and is without merit. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.14. If the claim is to be heard, the Defendant respectfully ***** ***** an adjournment until the Pandemic Covid 19 Lockdown rules are relaxed.The Defendant is not legally trained and is unaware of what documentation should have been received by the courts.Due to an administration error at Middlesbrough County Courts, the court bundle was not posted to the Defendant until 29 April and received by the Defendant on 1st May 2020 and was incomplete. There were no Acknowledgement of Service or Defence forms included. This has subsequently been reported to the Court Administration office.An adjournment will provide an opportunity for the Defendant to seek further legal advice, to obtain Witness Statements from witnesses who are currently ‘Shielding’ and obtain further supporting documentation from Local Authority Planning Offices, local councillor and Member of Parliament who are currently on skeleton staff and cannot provide the necessary support at this time.

Do I need to send the Defence statement to the courts and the Claimants solicitor, and if so when does this need to be received by?Does the Defence document need to be prepared on a particular form or can it just be a written statement?Do I need to add the statement of Truth?This morning I have sent you the 14 points that I feel are the key aspects of the Defence statement - could you provide your comments on the strength of defence and the wording used in the 14 points as these are what I intend to include in the defence statement.The telephone hearing - It was originally listed for the claimant to determine the issue but we asked for an adjournment to seek advice. The new hearing is that the defendants application notice is listed for hearing at the same time as the reallocated adjourned hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the Defendant's application and to give Directions.

I accept it is their land but if we have had permission to use it for over 20 years?.Is there something like an Easement or Permissive rights that we could be considered for?If the planning permission/approval implies the off street parking is for the use of the Estate (which includes the remaining 5 bungalows) and for 10 years after the planning approval and construction of the parking spaces, the residents of the bungalows have been using the parking spaces - does that have any strength?If a leaseholder has given permission for my brother to park there - does that have any strength?Not having a defence would mean that my brother has no rights to access to the rear of his garden which doesnt make sense. Surely this would devalue his property?

What about the verbal permission given by the previous Management Agent who lived in the maisonette opposite - Does that not count for anything?

What would your recommend as the best way to deal with this?

How would you recommend I approach this?

How would I do a deal of some sort and what deal could I propose?

ah sorry I thought you meant I had to offer a deal with them before Friday's court hearing. Is there anything I can do to stop it going to court? I have read somewhere about a 'without Prejudice Part 36 offer' but not sure if that is relevant to this.

Would it be worth offering to stop parking in the parking spaces but seek permission to park at the rear of the bungalow?

Seek permission to park at the rear -Would I need to do this before Friday?

Is there any particular statement to use when offering a deal

Ah ok. To the solicitor? Do I mention about why my brother thought he was ok to park where he did. ie implied planning, historical permission etc or just suggest to reach an amicable agreement my brother proposes .... etc