UKPC McDonalds County Court Claim 14 March 2022 at 10:14PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 76 replies 1.5K views

D_P_Dance

Also trying to charge £287 which includes £35 court fee and £50 legal

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions, which are nvariabky disallowed by the judge, yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Rinceward

KeithP said:

Do UKPC already know the driver's identity?
If not, it might not be wise to offer that information.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 offers some protection to a keeper but none to a known driver.

Yes, your para 3 does need rewriting. Defences are usually written in the third person.
So for example, you might write...
As the vehicle entered the McDonald’s carpark, the driver could see that it was very busy.
 

I have re-written the defence, please see below.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

 

3.  The Defendant entered McDonalds Carpark. The carpark was busy, therefore, the Defendant waited for a free space to appear. Approx. 5 minutes. As spaces were tight the defendant allows children to exit the car before parking up. Approx. 2 minutes.  The Defendant then took time to read the parking notices. The Defendant left to the parked vehicle with time to spare. The defendant left the car parking space to allow the children to enter the car. Approx. 3 Minutes. Service was slow so the Defendant decided to drive through the drive thru to order dessert. The defendant believes no rules were broken as the Defendant was not parked.

I have also changed forum username as suggested

Thank you all, you have been very helpful

Rinceward

D_P_Dance said:

Also trying to charge £287 which includes £35 court fee and £50 legal

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions, which are nvariabky disallowed by the judge, yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Is this something that needs to be in the defence letter, or just a separate complaint letter to the SRA

Thank you

KeithP

Earlier I asked...

KeithP said:

Do UKPC already know the driver's identity?
If not, it might not be wise to offer that information.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 offers some protection to a keeper but none to a known driver.

Yes, your para 3 does need rewriting. Defences are usually written in the third person.
So for example, you might write...
As the vehicle entered the McDonald’s carpark, the driver could see that it was very busy. 

You replied "They do not know the driver".

I suggested the style you should use but you have ignored it.

Now your proposed Defence is riddled with multiple statements telling everyone who reads it exactly who was driving the vehicle at the time.

Rinceward

KeithP said:

Earlier I asked...

KeithP said:

Do UKPC already know the driver's identity?
If not, it might not be wise to offer that information.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 offers some protection to a keeper but none to a known driver.

Yes, your para 3 does need rewriting. Defences are usually written in the third person.
So for example, you might write...
As the vehicle entered the McDonald’s carpark, the driver could see that it was very busy. 

You replied "They do not know the driver".

I suggested the style you should use but you have ignored it.

Now your proposed Defence is riddled with multiple statements telling everyone who reads it exactly who was driving the vehicle at the time.

Doh!   I see the error in my ways.

I am glad you are here to guide. 

Thank you for not calling me the many names that are available to you at this present moment 

Rinceward

Rinceward said:

KeithP said:

Earlier I asked...

KeithP said:

Do UKPC already know the driver's identity?
If not, it might not be wise to offer that information.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 offers some protection to a keeper but none to a known driver.

Yes, your para 3 does need rewriting. Defences are usually written in the third person.
So for example, you might write...
As the vehicle entered the McDonald’s carpark, the driver could see that it was very busy. 

You replied "They do not know the driver".

I suggested the style you should use but you have ignored it.

Now your proposed Defence is riddled with multiple statements telling everyone who reads it exactly who was driving the vehicle at the time.

Doh!   I see the error in my ways.

I am glad you are here to guide. 

Thank you for not calling me the many names that are available to you at this present moment 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

 

3.  As the vehicle entered McDonald’s carpark, the driver could see the it was very busy. As there were no free spaces the driver waited until a space became available. Estimated waiting time 5 minutes. Due to the spaces being tight, the driver stopped to let out the passengers before parking up. As some of the passengers were using car seats this took an estimated 3 minutes. The driver then took 3 minutes to read the Car Parking signs, decided to stay in the car park and checked the time. 18:00 hours

4. The service was slow and towards the end of the meal, the driver was conscious of the time limit. Arriving back at the vehicle the driver had time to spare 19:25 hours. The driver pulled out of the space and stopped to allow the passengers to enter the vehicle. Estimated 3 minutes. To ensure no parking rule was broken the driver decided to use the drive-thru to order coffee and dessert. The driver was not parked for the time stated, therefore not believing an offence had occurred.

Third time lucky?
I want to make clear that advice was not knowingly ignored.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't use the word 'offence' at all, because that's a criminalised word.

Call it 'alleged breach'.

Apart from that, all looks fine, as long as you are using the most recent version that I edited last week in the Template Defence thread.

1505grandad

"....the driver could see the it was very busy. "  -  does not make sense.

95Rollers

Did you see this article in the news? It's another case of a motorist getting double dipped by UKPC at another McDonald's when a mobile security guard drove in at the start and end of his shift.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19121865.satellite-system-proves-parking-firm-wrong-track/#:~:text=A PRIVATE parking company picked,for more than 10 hours.

The owner of the security firm kicked up a complaint and was able to evidence the driver was elsewhere due to a GPS log record.  But most people don't have access to this kind of tech.  The onus of proof is on UKPC as they are the accusers. There is no evidence to back up their claims of you "parking" or remaining on site. Where's the ANPR log, CCTV, witness statements etc to back up their claims!?!  

I'd say it's worth including this in your Defence as it evidences a recurring problem which UKPC haven't rectified.

I recently defended a Double Dip case in court which the judge dismissed the Claimant’s case. Once I've got the Judgment Paperwork I'll upload it.

Rinceward

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't use the word 'offence' at all, because that's a criminalised word.

Call it 'alleged breach'.

Apart from that, all looks fine, as long as you are using the most recent version that I edited last week in the Template Defence thread.

I believe so, but will just double check. 
Thank you