Ccbc claim help needed for defence.

Sasanova

Hi I wonder if you can help me with the defence please as I sent the AOS on the 10th Feb.
this relates to Sep 2018 due to overstay at McDonald’s drive through.
 I am a private hire driver, for more than 30 years I’ve used this particular branch for dining and other facilities however back in July/Aug 2018 it closed for renovations when reopened unbeknown to me due to poor signage, they had assigned UKPC for the parking bit and as I’m a regular visitor ended up with 3 penalty charges needless to say I ignored rightly or wrongly all the letters from 7 different companies until I got the Ccbc claim form.
The amount was originally £50 for each then doubled to £100 then up to £160 and now I only have received Ccbc claim for one of them so far which is for £292.28.
I have stated in the AOS that I will contest the claim. 

I would be grateful for some urgent advice.
Thank you 

Fruitcake

They are not penalties.

Ignoring debt collectors was the correct thing to do, but a PCN should never be ignored.

What was the issue date of the claim form please? One of the regulars will hopefully give you some important dates to be put in your calendar once you provide this information.

What happened when you complained to the manager and/or CEO of McD's, or the landowner if different?

Have you complained to your MP yet?

Have you found the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES at the top of the forum? You should be following the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES, and use the template defence that is 95% written for you.
Amend paragraphs 2 and 3, and post them here for checking.

Sasanova

Hi thanks for your response the issue date was 28/01/22 and I never approached the manager although the thought crossed my mind was persuaded against it by friends saying if I did it would be an admission of guilt!! Reflecting back I would should have and no I haven’t contacted my MP about it, do you think she could put a stop to the harassment over the other 2 parking charges?

KeithP

Sasanova said:

Hi thanks for your response the issue date was 28/01/22...

Sasanova said:

Hi I wonder if you can help me with the defence please as I sent the AOS on the 10th Feb.

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 2nd March 2022 to file your Defence.

That's just over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Sasanova

Thank you, what are the chances of beating this because to be honest after almost 4 years I’m worn out by all the stress caused due to all the threatening letters.

go-on-then

Please dont stress.

Please remember they just want your money so threatening ccj letters etc and the stress these cause are all part of the game to make you cave in and pay.  Bailiffs wont be knocking your door down either.

MPs can sometimes help which is why it is advised to contact them. 

Follow the step by step guide in the Newbie thread and read as many other threads as you can.  Then read some more.
McDonalds is a regular on here as you will see.

D_P_Dance

Over 9 million PCNs are issued each year by these scammers.  Very very few pieple who take our advice end up paying   Just read the newbies,  follow our advice, and complain to your MP.

Sasanova

Much appreciate your reassurance just one more question, since I had 3 penalty charges in a matter of days but so far only one has proceeded this far!! Should they have proceeded with all 3 in one go? Or this is the norm to pursue them individually?

Coupon-mad

Yes they should have done, but it is the rogue norm for many firms connected to this industry to scam motorists and issue separate claims.

what are the chances of beating this because to be honest after almost 4 years I’m worn out by all the stress caused due to all the threatening letters.

We see  consumer wins or discontinued claims in 99% of cases and have done so since 2016 when we first started counting.  Yours is no different.  

Please follow the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so you know what to do and when.  We are happy to critique a defence and you need to add the good news from 2022 (this month) as explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013061/#Comment_79013061

Happy reading, get up to speed with the new Code of Practice from the DLUHC.  That thread explains why it matters even to existing cases and it's not even in the Template Defence yet because it's so new and I was elsewhere..

Sasanova

Thank you for your response can you tell me what you think of this defence I have prepared please.

1-The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into by conduct or otherwise whereby it was agreed to pay a parking charge and it is denied that this claimant (understood to have a bare license as managers) has to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.
2-It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.
3-I believe there was no signs at the entrance, smaller sign on the wall of the actual building at the time in question and added at a later date since McDonald had just reopened after closing for a month for renovations and obvious now appointing a private parking operator which was unknown to regular customers such as myself. Even the present signage are not legible from inside the car while driving due to the size of the font used., Claimant must give motorists to be able to read through these terms before they can be deemed acceptable.
4-I believe also the ANPR system is not a 100% accurate even the British Parking Association warn their members to check for.
BPA: as with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use: a) Repeat users of the car park inside a 2 hour period sometime find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an overstay. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur. b) some drive in/drive out motorists such as myself being a taxi driver that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked.
5-The particulars of claim set out an incoherent statement of case and quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the claimant maybe relying upon. Claiming costs/damages on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5,14,3.
That is the official Government guidance on the consumer right Act 2015 legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71. The Defendant avers that the CRA2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6,10,14 and 18 in Sch2, NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the system court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be unfair.
6-It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable. The Defendant’s position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98,100,193,198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015)UKSC67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd Chd(2011)EWHC4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135. Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge would appear to be penal and unrecoverable.
7-Even if the claimant had shown the global sum claimed in largest font on clear and prominent signs which is denied they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter chain. It is denied that the claimant have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.
8- The claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs not even if letters were issued by unregulated debt recovery third parties.
9-The claimant’s signs vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.
10-It should be noted that the new statutory code of practice on 7/02/2022 will introduce a cap of £50 on private parking charges and will ban additional debt recovery charges also material change notices where there is any material change to any pre existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been for public parking. The parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of change making it clear that new terms and conditions/ charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.  Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available, the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land. 
Although the new COP not yet in effect this highlights the unfairness and predatory nature of the charges added.
11-The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim.
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court maybe brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.


Sent from my iPhon

Coupon-mad

Are you saying this was a double visit captured as if it was one long stay? If not, don't have that part suggesting ANPR error.

And you don't put 'I' or me/myself, in a defence.  Change to 'the Defendant'.