McDonald's overstay

Notagain51

Hi guys

It's happened again and I now have another claim. For McDonald's this time.

UKPC

DCB Legal

Issue date 29Dec2022

AOS 10Jan2023

Running a bit late with this one but I've done a defence which is below. If this looks ok then I'll send it on.

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

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.

3. The defendant was returning home from working away at Heysham Power Station. Whilst feeling fatigued from the journey the defendant chose to stop at the McDonald’s Lincoln Black Horse Drive for refreshments before reaching home.

4. As there wasn’t many vehicles parked at the Mcdonald’s, the defendant pulled into a parking bay close to the entrance of the restaurant, went inside for refreshments, returned to the car and continued their journey home.

6. The defendant was surprised later to receive a parking charge notice (PCN) from a company called UK Parking Control Ltd, but did not respond because they believed this to be a scam as no signage was observed by the driver at the time.

 

Cheers for the help guys.

Trainerman

pedant alert , para 4....... As there wasn't were not
and
No para 5

KeithP

Notagain51 said:

Issue date 29Dec2022

AOS 10Jan2023

There is no mention in you proposed Defence of what you are accused of doing wrong.
Parked in wrong bay?
Overstayed?
Parked outside a bay?
Or what?

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 31st January 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK but make more of the fact that the Claimant did not have prominent signs that were 'bound to be seen' and if it was dark, add that too (signs were unlit or poorly lit).

Notagain51

Thanks for the response guys. This is much appreciated.

Amended version below

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.

3. The defendant was returning home from working away at Heysham Power Station. Whilst feeling fatigued from the journey the defendant chose to stop at the McDonald’s Lincoln Black Horse Drive for refreshments before reaching home.

4. As there were not many vehicles parked at the McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant pulled into a parking bay close to the entrance of the restaurant, went inside for refreshments, returned to the car and continued their journey home.

5. At no point was the defendant aware of any signs for parking. It was late at night, dark and the defendant was fatigued after the long journey. This is also a McDonald’s that the defendant, although aware of, has never visited before.

6. The defendant was surprised later to receive a parking charge notice (PCN) from a company called UK Parking Control Ltd for an overstay on the premises, but did not respond because they believed this to be a scam as no signage was observed by the driver at the time.

Coupon-mad

Remove 'fatigued' as it transfers the blame to you:

 It was late at night, dark and there were no signs at all beside the building where the Defendant parked, nor a warning on the shop doors/windows, nor inside the premises.  If there was a BPA Code of Practice compliant entrance sign at the car park threshold (and the Claimants are put to strict proof) it was impossible to see - and in fact, was not seen - in moving traffic in darkness.  It is averred that any signs were far from prominent, poorly lit, and not 'bound to be seen'.  Very conspicuous and clear signage is a requirement confirmed in the famous Supreme Court parking case in 2015 and cemented the same year by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which added two new factors to improve the replaced UTCCRS: 'prominence' and 'consumer notices' (i.e. the mandatory test of fairness must also be applied to clarity and prominence of signage, not just 'terms').

Notagain51

Thanks for the help, it's really appreciated. I've inserted in below and adjusted the rest. Hopefully this will pass your scrutiny...

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.

3. The Defendant was returning home after working away at Heysham Power Station and chose to stop at McDonald’s Lincoln Black Horse Drive for refreshments before reaching home.

4. As there were not many vehicles parked at the McDonald’s restaurant, the Defendant pulled into a parking bay close to the entrance of the restaurant, went inside for refreshments, returned to the car and continued their journey home.

5. It was late at night, dark and there were no signs at all beside the building where the Defendant parked, nor a warning on the shop doors/windows, nor inside the premises. If there was a BPA Code of Practice compliant entrance sign at the car park threshold (and the Claimants are put to strict proof) it was impossible to see - and in fact, was not seen - in moving traffic in darkness. It is averred that any signs were far from prominent, poorly lit, and not 'bound to be seen'. Very conspicuous and clear signage is a requirement confirmed in the famous Supreme Court parking case in 2015 and cemented the same year by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which added two new factors to improve the replaced UTCCRS: 'prominence' and 'consumer notices' (i.e. the mandatory test of fairness must also be applied to clarity and prominence of signage, not just 'terms').

6. The defendant was surprised later to receive a parking charge notice (PCN) from a company called UK Parking Control Ltd for an alleged overstay on the premises, but did not respond because they believed this to be a scam as no signage was observed by the driver at the time.

 

Coupon-mad

"for an alleged overstay"

Notagain51

Updated above. Thank-you. 

Notagain51

Update. I've sent in my N180  but MCOL haven't received it yet. I called them after the MCOL site showed  a general sanction order. They did say  that was an automated response and not to worry as I have the bounce back email when I submitted the DQ. They did ask me to resubmit it but also said that they are weeks behind with the processing. 

Coupon-mad

As long as you did re-submit it and got another auto-reply then I expect them to pick it up.