Stansted McDonalds County Court Claim

mcdeesparkingfine

Hi everyone. I'm trying to help someone out with a PCN at the infamous Southgate car park. In summary, the key points are:

The PCN is dated December 2017. The keeper has since switched vehicles and moved house. He was somehow tracked down by dcbl, over 5 years later, who sent some threatening letters, which were ignored. A Country Court Claim form dated 9 August has now arrived. We are going through the acknowledgement of service process detailed on the newbies thread today. 

The keeper remembers parking there at the time and remembers some paperwork arriving. He is, however, a non native English speaker and had someone help him draft a response at the time. He did not keep a copy of this. All he has is one letter from dcbl and the County Court claim form. I have tried to view the PCN details given the reference number they have provided on the paymetparking website but that site cannot locate the pcn based on the reference number and registration. 

The claim form states that the keeper agreed to pay the charge within 28 days (I assume of receiving the charge) but did not. It also states that the vehicle was "parked in breach of the Terms on [sic] Conditions" which incurred the parking charge. 

The keeper remembers waiting in the car park for under 60 minutes and then leaving and returning with some family and popping in to Mcdonalds. From the information I have been given I assume that the PCN relates to perhaps parking in the wrong area of the car park when visiting McDonalds but I can't be sure. 

Not having any more information than this, I was hoping for some pointers as to what to include in the statement to the court. Any thoughts gratefully received. 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

I see that you are helping someone else, which is of course good, but do please ensure that everything is done in the name of the named Defendant.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th August, you have until Tuesday 29th August to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th September 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

patient_dream

And once again, I post this link describing the MET PARKING SCAM at Stansted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RcNM4SM0

mcdeesparkingfine

Thank you for the responses. Acknowledgement of service has been submitted successfully so on to the defence. It is frustrating that I cannot get any information about the pcn as the website does not recognise the pcn number. What he has found though is a response to his original appeal, which I have attached a redacted version of. I would be most grateful for any help in preparing some of the arguments for the defence. Thanks in advance. 

patient_dream

Interesting letter from MET.  Goes against the Joe Lycett video aired on TV and YouTube and here ....
https://www.change.org/p/starbucks-and-mcdonald-s-end-aggressive-stansted-parking-fines

As widely reported in the media, customers to Starbucks and McDonald's Stansted Airport are being issued parking charges when using the shared car parking facilities. 

Do a search on google street for Southgate Park and also type in on google with keywords ... "mcdonalds southgare park stansted"

Despite what MET say, there is nothing better than the Joe Lucett video as prove

Coupon-mad

Why not just copy the other defence from this week about the same place?  Someone just wrote theirs yesterday(ish) on this forum.

No link, it's easy to find by searching.

mcdeesparkingfine

Still looking for the defence mentioned above but have started on the defence. In the meantime am attaching here the claim form as there are similarities with other ones I have seen on here, including the legal representative! 

(Removed by Forum Team)

B789

Once again... you are responding to those woefully inadequate PoC. When adding your own paras #2 and #3, make sure you do nothing to assist the intellectually malnourished duo of DCb Legal and MET Parking when they come to submit their WS.

There is no mention of what terms were breached so do not mention anything about "leaving the site". They will have no proof of this anyway. All that needs to be stated is that the defendant is the RK and cannot be held liable as the land is not relevant for the purpose of PoFA 2012. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the defendant as, the RK, is liable. The defendant can also mention that signage at the site is incoherent, confusing, misleading and cannot form a contract.

KISS and when you submit the rest of the robust template defence, you should already know if you read these forums that they will discontinue before it ever gets to court.

mcdeesparkingfine

OK, how is the below, using mostly snippets from other posters?. I have decided to focus mainly on the boundaries being unclear given that I don't know what exactly was said in the earlier appeal. I would be very grateful for any specific improvements I could make to this. I will of course include all of the text in the Newbies template in the final defence. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive 'parking charge notice' (PCN).

3. No breach of contract occurred because:

i.            Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention.

The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated are still photos with no attempt to describe what they contain or purport to show in support of the alleged ‘contravention’ – specifically the claim that the 'vehicle was recorded as remaining parked in this car park while the driver was recorded walking off the site in the direction of McDonald's”.

There is no evidence on the photographs, or in the provided documentation from MET that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that a driver could see while on site, in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'. Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site', this means nothing if 'the site' in question is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park such as Southgate Park.

ii.          The site boundary is not clear.

There are no legible markings on the photographs distinguishing the boundary of Southgate Park. It is not clear which area of land the term ‘Southgate Park’ refers to.
According to Uttlesford District Council’s planning portal, the address of McDonald’s is "Mcdonalds Southgate, Thremhall Avenue, Stansted, CM24 1PY and Starbuck’s address is Starbucks Coffee, Southgate, Thremhall Avenue, Stansted, CM24 1PY.
According to Royal Mail Group, the address of McDonald's is "McDonalds Restaurants Ltd, Thremhall Avenue, London Stansted Airport, STANSTED, CM24 1PY" and Starbuck's address is "Starbucks Coffee Co (UK) Ltd, Thremhall Avenue, London Stansted Airport, STANSTED, CM24 1PY"

Any reasonable person would assume, in the absence of any clearly defined markings, maps, or boundaries, that these areas are “Southgate Park” as defined by the provided sign images. "Southgate Park" does not refer to any specifically defined business or area of land at either Uttlesford District Council or Royal Mail.

Furthermore, as can be clearly seen on the google maps image below, there is only one entrance to the entire site from Southgate Road. Leaving the site, to a reasonable person, would mean to leave the vehicle within this boundary and go to a place clearly outside the boundary. A reasonable person would understand that this condition would be in place to stop people parking and possibly going to the airport. There isn’t any clearly defined boundary to show that one part of a car park is different to another part of the car park.

[section of map from google maps]

The lack of boundaries is so unclear, that this has been labelled by the Guardian as “Britain’s most ridiculous parking fine” (see [link to article form 2018]), and the popular comedian, Joe Lycett, even produced a video to demonstrate the ludicrousness of issuing a PCN in this place where no clear boundaries are present (see:[link to Joe Lycett video])

iii          As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 the contract terms and notices are not fair.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 62 states that there is a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair. As there is not a clear boundary between the different parts of the site (as explained in point 4), this is contrary to the CRA, as it "causes a significant imbalance in the parties; rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer" and as such (1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer."

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely. the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims with the same POC that this claim sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegation, making it very difficult to respond. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages.

B789

I don't know which bit of KISS is confusing you but you only need to respond to the PoC. Nowhere in the PoC does it mention "leaving the site" or anything else. The PoC just say that "the 'vehicle' was parked in breach of the C's signs". they don't mention anything else so why are you bringing it up? By writing War & Peace, you are doing the claimant's dirty work for them.

You will expand on everything else when it comes time to do the WS. You should be using the template defence, a copy of which can be found here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qvpuwpd7429l2dx76g60u/Updated-defence-Aug2023.rtf?rlkey=asf63gtl232jcvgz68k6w23ng&dl=0

You can always SAR MET Parking to provide copies of everything they have about the defendant, including any photos or CCTV (which they shouldn't be keeping)

Every paragraph should be numbered sequentially using only integers.

mcdeesparkingfine

Thank you @B789 for your advice 2 posts above. I hadn't seen it when I posted my first draft. I now appreciate that it is only the POC I need to respond to, even though in the appeal rejection they do mention leaving the site etc. I'm very happy to use the template defence with only minor case specific amendments.

If I may, I have a question about your advice re the PoFA. As I mentioned, I do not know what was written by the registered keeper in their original appeal (the response to which I pasted above) but I assume they admitted they were the driver at the time. In the template therefore I have also included the words "and driver" after "registered keeper" in paragraph 2. In such cases, does the POFA argument apply, given that he has already, I think, identified himself as the driver?