County Court Claim form for overstay parking in McDonald’s

Spiceylily

Coupon-mad said:

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 

After all said and done, I have come up with this Defence. Will this suffice 



                        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 at the time of alleged offence in question, but liability is denied.

3.1 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).

3.2 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed. The sum claimed by the Defendant is unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the added costs clause is unrecoverable;

3.3 The Defendant believes the claim involves an element of double recovery which is an abuse of process as it is an inflated claim. The Claimant have added an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. The parking ticket would have been £100, but Claimant have add-on of £96 making it £196? The Claimant is claiming for damages which is a feeble excuse and is double recovery which the courts do not allow. DCBL have signed the claim as a "statement of truth" and there is nothing true about fakery;

In addition to the disputed Claim by the Claimant, I like to refer to the case of

Excel vs 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''.

 “Abuse of Process- the quantum :

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."

3.4 The driver has visited the location twice. Hence, it can be argued that the claim is 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. The Claimant has not provided enough evidence and information to eradicate this doubt.

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 statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case. Prior to 


etc....

Umkomaas

Your para 3.3 is unnecessary, as @Coupon-mad has already said, it is already 'clobbered to death' in the Defence template (paras 6-14).  Duplication won't double your chances! 

1505grandad

An observation:-

Wonder why on the notice the "Parking Charge Details" box states "Parking Charge Date  01/0/8/2019"

- I thought the parking event was 27/7/2019.

The payment slips posted - the dates stated are different to each other also  -  seem to be confusion between parking date and notice issue date.

Spiceylily

1505grandad said:

An observation:-

Wonder why on the notice the "Parking Charge Details" box states "Parking Charge Date  01/0/8/2019"

- I thought the parking event was 27/7/2019.

The payment slips posted - the dates stated are different to each other also  -  seem to be confusion between parking date and notice issue date.

Hi, 
Yes, I thought that was meant to be issue date. Can this mistake on their part be anything significant?
Thanks for bringing it up though. 

Spiceylily

Umkomaas said:

Your para 3.3 is unnecessary, as @Coupon-mad has already said, it is already 'clobbered to death' in the Defence template (paras 6-14).  Duplication won't double your chances! 

Noted, thanks

Umkomaas

Spiceylily said:

1505grandad said:

An observation:-

Wonder why on the notice the "Parking Charge Details" box states "Parking Charge Date  01/0/8/2019"

- I thought the parking event was 27/7/2019.

The payment slips posted - the dates stated are different to each other also  -  seem to be confusion between parking date and notice issue date.

Hi, 
Yes, I thought that was meant to be issue date. Can this mistake on their part be anything significant?
Thanks for bringing it up though. 

Possibly. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6344705/another-one-bites-the-dust#latest

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6295383/vcs-dcb-legal-cc-claim/p1

Spiceylily

Hi All,

Thanks much for all your help. Really appreciate. Thinking of sending in my Defence today.
I will appreciate any last suggestions. 
I'm just a bit worried and trying to take a grasp on any glimpse of hope!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

                        xxxx                         

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 at the time of alleged offence in question,  but liability is denied. 

 

3.1 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).

 

3.2 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed. The sum claimed by the Defendant is unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the added costs clause is unrecoverable;

3.3 The driver has visited the location twice. Hence, it can be argued that the claim is 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. The Claimant has not provided enough evidence and information to eradicate this doubt.

 

 

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 statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, there were no photos nor a copy of the contract (sign) enclosed with any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on detail or facts about the alleged breach, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time.  

6.

 Etc......

 

Coupon-mad

I think you should admit to 'and the driver' in #2 and then change 'the driver' to 'the Defendant' in the later descriptions of what happened.  A more honest defence position.  Yours reads like you are trying to hide who was driving, but when it was you and it's a double dip with inadequate signage...and if the NTK was POFA compliant anyway, you have nothing to hide.

I also think you should elaborate a bit more about how you know it was definitely a double visit.

Spiceylily

Coupon-mad said:

I think you should admit to 'and the driver' in #2 and then change 'the driver' to 'the Defendant' in the later descriptions of what happened.  A more honest defence position.  Yours reads like you are trying to hide who was driving, but when it was you and it's a double dip with inadequate signage...and if the NTK was POFA compliant anyway, you have nothing to hide.

I also think you should elaborate a bit more about how you know it was definitely a double visit.

@C@Coupon-mad @U@Umkomaas


Thanks. Thought i could play safe as Defendant  as I wasn't sure of duration of stay on my 1st trip to the location. But guess you're right, it's better to come clean.
I have therefore changed the wordings, and added Umkomaas observations too. See below. What do you think? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle at the time of alleged offence in question,  but liability is denied. 

 

3.1 At the time of the alleged offence, the Defendant was visiting McDonald’s with his young children. The Defendant 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 (defendant was not aware this is not the case for McDonald’s).

 

3.2 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed. The sum claimed by the Defendant is unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the added costs clause is unrecoverable;

3.3 The Defendant has visited the location twice because there was a missing item in the takeaway that was ordered after dining in. This was only discovered on getting home, resulting in second journey back to McDonald’s for the missing order! Hence, it can be argued that the claim is 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. The Claimant has not provided enough evidence and information to eradicate this doubt.

3.4  The PCN Copies provided by the Claimant through SAR clearly shows administrative errors. The notice is showing "Parking Charge Date as 01/08/2019" rather than 27/07/2019. The dates stated on payment slips are also confusing, there’s discrepancies between parking date and notice issue date making it different to each other. The Defendant cannot be held liable for administrative errors made by the Claimant.

Coupon-mad

You don't need 3.2 because the added costs and CRA are more than covered by the rest of the template defence.

Also get rid of the italics and you're done.