County court Notice for Overstay at McDonalds (UKPC)

Coupon-mad

Confused63 said:

Sorry... I dont know why it still keeps attaching the claim form picture mid-post. 

Your post must contain a URL to the image.

Make sure your actual defence document doesn't!  You could add that time in moving traffic on arrival, plus queuing at a drive-thru, is clearly not part of a period of parking and the use of ANPR at a site with a Drive-thru is unsuitable and unfair to drivers caught in Drive-thru queues, who did not in fact exceed the advertised time parked in a bay.

There is an inadequate grace period and no additional 'exempting camera' at the drive-thru, which would act as a fair way to remove cars from the parking period calculation. 

Le_Kirk

Please note that you cannot submit a defence "on someone else's behalf" but you can help them write it and submit it in their name with their signature on it.

Confused63

Hi, thanks everyone for your advise, I have tried to include all the feedback/suggestions into points 3.1 to 3.5, does this look/read ok?

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.

 3.1 The McDonalds drive-through was very busy and service was extremely slow. The defendant queued (within the car park) to use the drive-thru, however after a very long time of patiently waiting and only moving a short distance, they eventually decided to park and order inside. The queue of customers outside was also long, slow moving as only a 1-2 were allowed inside at once to order/collect their food, and only a few staff were working due to covid-19. This meant another long wait for the defendant who was advised they weren’t able to stay/sit inside and should return to their car to eat their meal, which they did and then left.

 3.2 Usage of ANPR at the site entrance is unsuitable and unfair as the defendant was in the long drive-through queue, (which was queued back all of the way through main carpark) which should not be included part of the period of parking. The driver only parked in a bay following a very long time in this queue and therefore the time parked didn’t exceed the advertised maximum time to be parked in a bay. There is an inadequate grace period and no additional 'exempting camera' when queuing for or at the drive-thru, which would act as a fair way to remove cars from the parking period calculation.

 3.4 Being mid-pandemic, the allowed time was simply insufficient due to the above events and due allowance should have been made.

 3.5  In addition to the above, the driver has dyslexia and ADHD which make tasks such as reading and understanding written information (e.g. signs) and perception of time more difficult than usual and the typical individual. In section, 20 of the equality act it states reasonable adjustments should be made to remove barriers against disabled people.

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 full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock.

5. With regard to template statements etc... 

thanks

Coupon-mad

Looks fine - except you haven't edited para 2 as the Template Defence tells you to.

1505grandad

Pedantic observation  -  no point 3.3

Confused63

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine - except you haven't edited para 2 as the Template Defence tells you to.

Thanks Coupon-mad. I missed that somehow. 

Confused63

1505grandad said:

Pedantic observation  -  no point 3.3

Thanks 1505. good spot. I merged 3.3 into 3.2 and didn't re-number. 

Confused63

Thanks for the further comments, I am so glad to have the support here to help draft this. hopefully nailed it this time. 

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 and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

 3.1 The McDonalds drive-through was very busy and service was extremely slow. The defendant queued (within the car park) to use the drive-thru, however after a very long time of patiently waiting and only moving a short distance, they eventually decided to park and order inside. The queue of customers outside was also long, slow moving as only a 1-2 were allowed inside at once to order/collect their food, and only a few staff were working due to covid-19. This meant another long wait for the defendant who was advised they weren’t able to stay/sit inside and should return to their car to eat their meal, which they did and then left.

 3.2 Usage of ANPR at the site entrance is unsuitable and unfair as the defendant was in the drive-through queue, (which was queued back all of the way through main carpark) which should not be included part of the period of parking. The driver only parked in a bay following a very long time in this queue and therefore the time parked didn’t exceed the advertised maximum time to be parked in a bay. There is an inadequate grace period and no additional 'exempting camera' when queuing for or at the drive-thru, which would act as a fair way to remove cars from the parking period calculation.

 3.3 Being mid-pandemic, the allowed time was simply insufficient due to the above events and due allowance should have been made.

 3.4  In addition to the above, the driver has dyslexia and ADHD which make tasks such as reading and understanding written information (e.g. signs) and perception of time more difficult than usual and the typical individual. In section, 20 of the equality act it states reasonable adjustments should be made to remove barriers against disabled people.

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 full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock.

5. With regard to template statements etc... 

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

Confused63

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good.

Thanks Coupon-mad.