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

Coupon-mad

None of the 115 results found by searching for the three keywords the NEWBIES thread tells you to search for at LBC stage, starts with the salutation: "to whom it may concern".

Also that's not the robust Henderson v Henderson wording found all over other LBC responses relating to 'two claims'.

The rest is a good start but this stuff written in the third person makes no sense because you are unrelated to all this and you aren't writing this, he is:

[My son] parked in an area that he understood 

jefferp

Hi - Thank you for response and will look again for examples

I'll change the use of third person to first so that all ambiguity is avoided.

jefferp

Draft 2.  And again, thank you for your time. I will find some way to "pay forward" your assistance.

Dear Sirs,

Reference PCN’s:

22/05/23 9219xxxx. UKPC Litigation Reference Number: L000xxxx

20/05/23 9219xxxx. UKPC Litigation Reference Number: L000xxxx

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

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

As confirmed (in the attached email) by:

xxx

Assistant Manager

AMH Family Enterprise Ltd

T/A McDonalds’s Crown House

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

I was employed by and working at McDonalds, Crown House, Dowding Way, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 3UY on a part time basis as a full time student studying for A Levels on the dates and time that the PCN’s were issued.  As evidenced by email, UKPC were requested by xxx, Assistant Manager, McDonalds, Crown House, Dowding Way, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 3UY 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. 

I parked in an area that I understood was permitted for McDonalds employees.  XXX, Assistant Manager, McDonalds Tunbridge Wells email of 6 September to the McDonalds account team at UKPC requesting cancellation of PCN's further substantiates this belief.

Further, the disputed charges are within 2 days. These Notices were delivered to me by post retrospectively.  I was unaware of the first until receiving both simultaneously. They both relate to the same car park and the facts are the same.

You will be aware that by detaching (or allowing to remain detached) elements of alleged debt - or series of alleged debts - and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.  The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant and should you subsequently file more than one claim, I will apply for the second action to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by you.

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

I demand that you take stock of your position and cease immediately and/or deal properly with the dispute as one claim.

Your ongoing pursuit of the disputed parking charges are materially effecting my ability to study for A Level Public Examinations in May 2024.

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

Yours faithfully,
X

Coupon-mad

That's good. That'll make their new Litigation Team scratch their heads.

jefferp

Thank you! Email sent to UKPC.