UK Parking Control Limited - COUNTY COURT LETTER - LIMITED TIME :(

Harbmeister

Hello,
Just an update as I take a breath having filed my defence.
I now await the next correspondence having had a confirmation letter my defence was filed (as well as the return email).

The driver attended the car park early in the morning order to dine at the McDonald’s, and use the services (wifi) on offer via McDonald’s. The driver parked and entered the restaurant. The driver purchased breakfast, which was eaten on premises, and for which the driver has a record of the transaction. The driver occupied a table and was involved in a work call. Following the work call, the driver purchased a coffee, paying cash. A short while later the driver left. At no time did the driver see signs restricting time and certainly no expressly prominent term saying they were agreeing to pay £100.
Unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, signage was not 'clear and conspicuous' and the Defendant did not agree to any prominent term to pay a fee or charge in what was advertised as a free car park for customers, on McDonald's webpages. 

Le_Kirk

Is that the defence that you filed?

fisherjim

Harbmeister said:

Hello,
Just an update as I take a breath having filed my defence.
I now await the next correspondence having had a confirmation letter my defence was filed (as well as the return email).

The driver attended the car park early in the morning order to dine at the McDonald’s, and use the services (wifi) on offer via McDonald’s. The driver parked and entered the restaurant. The driver purchased breakfast, which was eaten on premises, and for which the driver has a record of the transaction. The driver occupied a table and was involved in a work call. Following the work call, the driver purchased a coffee, paying cash. A short while later the driver left. At no time did the driver see signs restricting time and certainly no expressly prominent term saying they were agreeing to pay £100.
Unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, signage was not 'clear and conspicuous' and the Defendant did not agree to any prominent term to pay a fee or charge in what was advertised as a free car park for customers, on McDonald's webpages. 

If that is your defence you are not going to win it's basically an outline of your visit, UKPC will provide their evidence of (probably generic) signage etc and you will have no evidence to dispute it.

Fruitcake

Was your defence in your post above part of the defence template you were advised to use, or is that all you put in your defence?

Harbmeister

Le_Kirk said:

Is that the defence that you filed?

No it's the custom part only. I used the template as advised.

Harbmeister

Fruitcake said:

Was your defence in your post above part of the defence template you were advised to use, or is that all you put in your defence?

Hello Fruitcake, it was my custom part of the full defence template. Thanks.

Harbmeister

fisherjim said:

Harbmeister said:

Hello,
Just an update as I take a breath having filed my defence.
I now await the next correspondence having had a confirmation letter my defence was filed (as well as the return email).

The driver attended the car park early in the morning order to dine at the McDonald’s, and use the services (wifi) on offer via McDonald’s. The driver parked and entered the restaurant. The driver purchased breakfast, which was eaten on premises, and for which the driver has a record of the transaction. The driver occupied a table and was involved in a work call. Following the work call, the driver purchased a coffee, paying cash. A short while later the driver left. At no time did the driver see signs restricting time and certainly no expressly prominent term saying they were agreeing to pay £100.
Unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, signage was not 'clear and conspicuous' and the Defendant did not agree to any prominent term to pay a fee or charge in what was advertised as a free car park for customers, on McDonald's webpages. 

If that is your defence you are not going to win it's basically an outline of your visit, UKPC will provide their evidence of (probably generic) signage etc and you will have no evidence to dispute it.

Hello fisherjim,
That's the custom part only. I used the template as advised.

Coupon-mad

That's a relief!

Harbmeister

Just received this...

Good afternoon
Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on xxxx xxx xxxx  within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.———Is it normal?TIA

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79149898/#Comment_79149898