County Court Claim form for overstay parking in McDonald’s

Spiceylily

Hi All,

I have received a claim form from County Court Business Centre dated 25/02/2022. UKPC Ltd. claiming I have breached the terms Cs signs ( letter attached here) at McDonald’s etc. They're claiming for £281.60 

After going through quite a few of the threads and advice on this forum, I have done AoS on  9/3/2022  and acknowledgement received, sent off SAR through email on 10/03/2022 as seen on newbies threads but awaiting response from them.
I'm about to send off my defence cos I believe I don't have much time and will appreciate any help I can get. Defence using the same template found in this forum

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

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. At the time of the alleged offence, the driver was visiting McDonald’s with his young children. The driver being a constant user of this retail centre and an addicted customer of McDonald’s did not notice the obscured parking sign,  as the retail centre allows 3 hours free parking to shoppers in the centre, which allow customers do their shopping in different stores without having to worry about parking and parking time for 3 hours (driver was not aware this is not the case for McDonald’s). The driver’s children always enjoys playing on the McDonald’s play area after eating, and the wait for extra takeaways after dining. These factors contributed to the visit being longer than anticipated. And moreover, if this was known to the driver, he would have parked in the usual parking spot within the retail centre which he had used on frequent occasions and never had problems rather than the McDonald’s spot which was used as a result of getting his children food to eat. Apart from the dining in McDonald’s, the driver also bought takeaways from McDonald’s to take to grandmother who was ill and as a result couldn’t join in. The takeaway order was later discovered not complete on getting home resulting in the driver making a second trip to the said location for the same order without any compensation for the staffs mistake!

 4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after a great deal of research, after adding facts and reading the defence through several times because the court process is outside of their life experience and this claim was an unexpected shock.

5.  With regard to template state

etc....

D_P_Dance

What about double recovery?  Read the newbies, read other defences. read this, and complain to your MP  At the moment this reads like a witness statement.

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/

Spiceylily

@D_P_Dance

Thanks for your prompt response I'll go through the links you pointed out. I reply shortly 

patient_dream

A judge will not be interested in the number of your visits . A judge is only interested in the facts and it is the facts that goes in your WS.

You say the signs were obscured ? then you need picture evidence of this
In general UKPC signs are rubbish anyway

Sadly, McDonalds are not interested in customers but prefer to support car park scammers.

Assume this was a retail car park, have you contacted the landowner to get this cancelled. ?

It will be the landowner who employed UKPC for car park management. This simply means that all UKPC can do is issue tickets.

DCBL are claiming damages (which is a lot of rubbish) and as said above, it is a feeble excuse and .. is double recovery which the courts do not allow

But, who are DCBL claiming damages for.  UKPC are only an agent and any damages would be to the landowner. Does the landowner know about this ?
The parking ticket would have been £100 so the court must ask DCBL about the add-on of £96 ?  

Also remember that DCBL signed the claim as a "statement of truth" and there is nothing true about fakery

Coupon-mad

Double recovery is more than clobbered to death in the rest of the template defence!

Did you use the drive-thru at any point or remained parked?  How much overstay?

I'd remove all this narrative:

 The driver’s children always enjoys playing on the McDonald’s play area after eating, and the wait for extra takeaways after dining. These factors contributed to the visit being longer than anticipated. And moreover, if this was known to the driver, he would have parked in the usual parking spot within the retail centre which he had used on frequent occasions and never had problems rather than the McDonald’s spot which was used as a result of getting his children food to eat. Apart from the dining in McDonald’s, the driver also bought takeaways from McDonald’s to take to grandmother who was ill and as a result couldn’t join in. The takeaway order was later discovered not complete on getting home resulting in the driver making a second trip to the said location for the same order without any compensation for the staffs mistake!

95Rollers

It appears you have visited twice and were not there for the 3 hours you stand accused of.

When these tickets occur it's known as an ANPR double dip where the first and last entry/ exit are recorded and not any of the intermediary visits which would negate the justification for a PCN.  Parking companies are advised to Quality Check this is not the case before contacting the DVLA for NTK details. BUT they rarely, if ever do! I was victim of a Double Dip by another firm and won my case in court (the claim was thrown out by Judge on hearing their evidence or should I say lack thereof!).

Use the search facility on forum to search for MCDONALD'S UKPC as there has been a lot of posts about this exact same situation at other McDs!  I have put a lengthy reply on one or two of them.  Also Google that as well as UKPC MCDONALD'S double dip case made national media!

KeithP

Spiceylily said:

I have received a claim form from County Court Business Centre dated 25/02/2022.
I have done AoS on  9/3/2022  and acknowledgement received.
I'm about to send off my defence cos I believe I don't have much time.

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 30th March 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

Spiceylily

@patient_dream

Thanks for your kind response and highlights. Basically, I shouldn't have ignored all the PCNs back then. It as always ended in the bin each time (somehow I've managed to assumed its better to ignore them).
I took a visit to the retail centre today to get picture evidence of the signage and all looks so new, like they were placed recently, i mean giving the length of time it took for this claim to come, which is roughly close to 3yrs. Signage Pics attached. 
On entering the retail centre you see Pic A & B, which is very much what is all around the retail parking lot Except for McDonald’s parking (see Pic C & Pic D) which of course looks all new. Not sure I would have missed it at time of contravention if it was there. Hence, reason I said must have been obscured earlier! Doubt I can stand on any of this now. 
I spoke to McDonald’s shift manager, who wasn't very helpful. 

 

Spiceylily

@Coupon-mad

Thanks for you response and suggestion. I've taking the highlighted out.
I didn't use the drive thru at all. I was parked on both visit.and not sure how long I was parked on either visit as I currently don't have any details on the visits apart from my statements showing both payments to McDonald’s. 

patient_dream

Spiceylily said:

@patient_dream

Thanks for your kind response and highlights. Basically, I shouldn't have ignored all the PCNs back then. It as always ended in the bin each time (somehow I've managed to assumed its better to ignore them).
I took a visit to the retail centre today to get picture evidence of the signage and all looks so new, like they were placed recently, i mean giving the length of time it took for this claim to come, which is roughly close to 3yrs. Signage Pics attached. 
On entering the retail centre you see Pic A & B, which is very much what is all around the retail parking lot Except for McDonald’s parking (see Pic C & Pic D) which of course looks all new. Not sure I would have missed it at time of contravention if it was there. Hence, reason I said must have been obscured earlier! Doubt I can stand on any of this now. 
I spoke to McDonald’s shift manager, who wasn't very helpful. 

 

If the signs appear new, UKPC cannot rely on them 
They can only rely on the signs at the time and to that end, they must prove to a court and you the signs at the time

UKPC are known to doctor pictures which is fraud.  The one problem DCBL have is they fail to understand the claim they bring

Spiceylily

Hi All, 

Noticed i have received updates from UKPC in response to SAR. 
It says max. parking is 1hr 30mins on the signage (contract) and alleged duration of stay was 1hr 49mins (19mins overstay). Not sure if this is an ANPR double dip where the first and last entry/entry was recorded. 
Also could I be missing anything else. Your comments will be highly appreciated. 
Details of updates received are attached.