Received 4 PCN's whilst employed by and working at McDonalds

jefferp

Hi,

My son is in his final year of A Levels and was working part time at McDonalds (he is now in other part-time employment).

During the time that he was employed, he passed his driving test and began parking at the Fountains Retail Car Park, Tunbridge Wells,  which is managed by UK Parking Control Ltd, a BPA Member.  He received 4 PCN's for shifts that he was working at the Tunbridge Wells branch. These PCN's were provided to a manager at the McDonalds Tunbridge Wells branch.  Two were rescinded quite quickly as his registration number had not been logged as exempt.

It has subsequently transpired that there is a "McDonalds" parking area that is managed separately to the Fountains Retail carpark.  Both are managed by UKPC. There is no demarcation of separate areas. My son had not parked in the "McDonalds" are but the Fountains Retail carpark.

Requests to rescind the outstanding 2 PCN's by the McDonalds manager have been refused. UKPC argue that the PCN's has been issued correctly for the Fountains Retail site.  I have managed to engage with UKPC also via a non-public McDonalds UKPC email address. They have been "unable" to have these 2 PCN's rescinded.

On 29 September my son received two "formal Letters of Claim" stating that within 30 days that payment must be made (£170 each), or completion of reply form and Financial Statement.

The litigation team at UKPC are insistent that the PCN's must be paid. 

I am now at a loss of next step.  Am I still able to appeal via POPLA?   Should I complete the reply form (30 days notice is by 29 October) continuing to dispute the debt?  Should I complete the financial statement for my son showing his limited income as a full-time student and hope that the PCN is reduced?

Many thanks in advance for any guidance that can be provided.

jefferp

Forgot to add - I am also trying to contact the landowner (Legal & General Investment Management) via their agent (Morgan Williams).

Umkomaas

Welcome to the forum. Can you confirm whether your son is the vehicle's registered keeper, and whether the correspondence from UKPC is in his name?

As it's now at LoC stage, it's far too late to appeal to POPLA. 

How to deal with LoCs is covered in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post.  Please do read that. 

Coupon-mad

Welcome! This is easy.

Are these letters coming to you as keeper?

Or are they in your son's name?

You (or your son, whoever the named recipient is) just needs to read and do what the NEWBIES thread tells you to do with a LBC or LoC.  I explain there what to put and exactly the simple three keywords to use, to search the forum for examples of robust replies, if you want to read some.

To your robust reply to UKPC (stating the dispute) I would add two extra things:

- list both LOC and PCN refs and tell them to consolidate the cases into a single claim because two separate but duplicate facts court claims running concurrently would be an abuse.  Search the forum for

Henderson estoppel LBC

- if you are getting these letters as keeper I'd also provide your son's name and address as driver for both PCNs and tell them to transfer liability immediately.  THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE I THINK THEY'LL REFUSE, WHICH THEN GIVES YOU AN EXTRA DEFENCE POINT FOR THE COURT CLAIM(S).

Court claim stage is what you want.

It's easy and it's when you/your son will win.  No risk, no CCJ as long as the Defendant does as we advise.  Very simple stuff.

jefferp

Thank you for your reply.  The letters are addressed to my son as he is the register keeper of the vehicle.

I will reread the newbies section and follow advice.

Thank you again.

elsien

Is he 17 or 18 now? 

jefferp

He is 17 currently.  18 in February 2024.

Coupon-mad

Don't mention that in his reply.

Let them start a claim while he is 17 which he can then mention in defence. Not that it means he's incapable of entering into a contract but it will be worth a mention in defence BUT NOT YET.

Just add the things I said to the robust LBC response denying liability.  He can admit to driving because an important matter is that he was authorised and worked there.

jefferp

Thank you again.  Am in the process of crafting the robust defence!

1505grandad

"Am in the process of crafting the robust defence!

Just checking  -  you mean LBC in your son's name as per:-

"Just add the things I said to the robust LBC response denying liability."

jefferp

Yes, that's correct.  This is my draft.  Any feedback is much appreciated.

To whom it may concern,

As previously advised, I attach the written authority for Mr [me] to discuss outstanding PCN's [vehicle registration] - XXX & XXX on [my son's] behalf.

I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I confirm my 'address for service’ as:

XXX

Reference PCN’s:

22/05/23 XXX. UKPC Litigation Reference Number: L000XXXX

20/05/23 XXX. UKPC Litigation Reference Number: L000XXXX

The above parking charges are disputed.  The car was properly parked, your signage is non-prominent and the terms poorly drafted. There was no breach of contract.

As confirmed (attached) by:

XXX

Assistant Manager

AMH Family Enterprise Ltd

T/A McDonalds’s Crown House

Crown House, Dowding way, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 3UY

[my son] was employed by and working at McDonalds, Tunbridge Wells Restaurant on the dates and time that the PCN’s were issued.  UKPC were requested by [Assistant Manager] on 6 September to cancel the PCN’s, and that all necessary steps had been taken to ensure non-issue.

There is no demarcation of parking exclusively for the use of McDonalds employees.  There is no communication or demarcation of prohibition of parking elsewhere within the Fountains Retail Car Park by McDonalds employees.

If the landowners do not intend for McDonalds employees to park, it is in their gift to mark it out as such (for example, yellow hatchings) which would have communicated the prohibition and avoided entrapment of drivers by ambiguity.  

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) states at S.69. (1):

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

This is an objective statement. It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says. Instead, it focuses on difference. If a trader who drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or the more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail – without further discussion. 

[My son] parked in an area that he understood was permitted for McDonalds employees.  XXX,  Assistant Manager, McDonalds Tunbridge Wells email to UKPC requesting cancellation of PCN's further substantiates this belief.

Further, referencing Henderson v Henderson the two PCN’s and UKPC Litigation References are to be consolidated into a single claim to pay proper regard to CPR1 and the doctrine of cause of action estoppel.

I expect immediate acknowledgement of my email on Monday 23 October 2023.