Court Claim Form - DCB Legal/MET Parking - Southgate, Stansted

headonfire

As an update, a year later after filling my defence, I have now received the Directions Questionnaire.

Between the time I filled my defence and receiving the Directions Questionnaire, I got a letter from DCB Legal saying they would be proceeding, which seems to be the way they operate. 

Is it normal to take this long to receive the Directions Questionnaire?

Coupon-mad

Sadly it can be because the court service is on its knees, and parking cases are the main cause of the delays, as they represent well over a third of all small claims filed each year.

A shocking state of affairs.  Without them the courts could cope and family cases wouldn't be delayed.

headonfire

Thank you very much @Coupon-mad.

I thought that would be the case. I will fill in the DQ form, and will update as soon as I have more news.

headonfire

Hi forumites,

Long time since my last update on my case, which has been dragging on.

The case now has been allocated to a hearing - the two claims consolidated into one by the judge - and I'm finalising the witness statement.

I've been reading all the recent threads and WS examples, and have written a draft of the WS. Could you please take a quick look when you have a chance?

I avoided repeating the same arguments of my defence (e.g. POFA, CRA, Beavis, double recovery), so focused primarily on Chan and Akande and inadequate PoCs; lack of evidence of contract and breach; and media evidence of entrapment.

Please find it below:

 

Table of Contents

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

EXHIBIT 01 – CIVIL ENFORCEMENT V MING TAK CHAN JUDGMENT

EXHIBIT 02 – CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD V AKANDE JUDGEMENT

EXHIBIT 03 – INADEQUATE SIGNAGE IN SOUTHGATE PARK

EXHIBIT 04 – PRESUMED ENTRANCE TO SOUTHGATE PARK, SHOWING HIDDEN SIGN

EXHIBIT 05 – INADEQUATE SIGNAGE VISIBLE TO PEDESTRIANS

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Witness Statement of Defendant

______________________________________________________________

 

1.      I am xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.      In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-5) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.      I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim (and the first is about this same Claimant).  I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.

 

4.      The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15 August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. (See Exhibit 01)

 

5.      The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit 02)

 

6.      I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

 

7.      The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. In fact, the present PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action.

 

Facts and Sequence of Events

 

8.      It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It is unknown who the driver of the vehicle was on the dates of the claimed PCNs, given the PCNs date back to 2018, more than six years ago.

 

9.      Multiple individuals were authorised by me to use the vehicle at the times of the alleged contraventions via their own comprehensive insurance policies, which allowed them to use another private vehicle for which they were covered on a third party only basis.

 

10.   I do not recall receiving any pre-claim correspondence relating to the PCNs in question. 

 

11.   Parking Notice: The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim state: “The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on C’s signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s)… D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding.” I submit that this wording is generic and fails to identify any specific contractual term or alleged conduct that would constitute a breach. No details are provided about what actions allegedly gave rise to each PCN, nor is there clarity as to whether the allegation is failure to pay, leaving the site, or some other alleged violation. This ambiguity undermines any claim that a valid and enforceable contract was breached.

 

12.   No Contract, No Breach: The Claimant’s particulars suggest a purported contractual obligation based on signage at the site stating: “Starbucks customer parking only – Do not leave the site whilst your vehicle is parked in the car park.” I dispute that such wording creates any clear or enforceable contractual term. Without a clearly defined and accessible ‘relevant obligation’ stipulated in legible signage, no valid contract can be formed. Ambiguous or obscure terms – especially where signage is poorly located, obstructed, or inconsistent – cannot be relied upon to establish breach. In any case, the wording used does not clearly specify what constitutes “leaving the site,” nor does it define what the “site” includes. Further signage in the carpark stipulating a contract is woefully inadequate with very small lettering. (See Exhibit 3)

 

13.   Lack of Physical Demarcation: There is no physical barrier, fencing, or otherwise to separate Southgate Park from the adjoining carpark. Given the apparent lack of any clear instructions or physical impediments, it is reasonable to assume that one may believe that Southgate Park is part of the adjoining car park. A reasonable person could infer that Southgate Park is a shared carpark between both premises of Starbucks and the nearby McDonalds, as they share a single entrance from the highway. (See Exhibit 4)

 

14.   Obstructed and Insufficient Signage: Although a sign appears at the car park entrance, it is obstructed by other signage, and is not positioned where a driver can easily read or digest its content before entering. The lettering is small, not prominent, and not repeated clearly throughout the site. (See Exhibit 4)

 

15.   Poor Visibility for Pedestrians: Once on foot, there is no clear signage to indicate to drivers or passengers that they are now “leaving the site.” The few signs that do exist are either poorly located (e.g., on the opposite side of the access road) or face the wrong direction, offering no reasonable opportunity to understand or comply with the alleged restriction. (See Exhibit 5)

 

In addition to the above

16.   The practices of MET Parking Services at this specific Stansted Airport site have been publicly criticised and exposed in a 2019 Channel 4 investigation by comedian Joe Lycett. The programme identified the Claimant’s conduct at Southgate Park as an example of predatory and misleading parking enforcement. (See: https://youtu.be/5i_RcNM4SM0)

 

17.   The site has also been the subject of widespread media scrutiny. Multiple national outlets have described it as “Britain’s most ridiculous car park,” citing consumer experiences that mirror the circumstances in this case. Examples include:

 

a.      The Mirror: "Couple slapped with 'Britain's most ridiculous' parking fine" 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-slapped-britains-most-ridiculous-13566237

 b.      The Daily Mail: "Couple hit with £60 fine despite parking in FREE car park near Stansted Airport" 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6374475/Couple-hit-60-fine-despite-parking-FREE-car-park-near-Stansted-Airport.html

 c.      Essex Live: "Essex's most ridiculous car park" 

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/essexs-most-ridiculous-car-park-3412330

d.      The Guardian: "Is this Britain’s more ridiculous fine?"

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park

18.   This extensive and ongoing media coverage demonstrates that the Claimant has been engaged in these questionable practices for many years. The continuation of such enforcement, despite public criticism and national exposure, indicates a deliberate business model focused on misleading signage and entrapment, rather than fair parking management.

 

Conclusion

19.   In conclusion, the claimant has failed to provide clear evidence that a contract was formed, nor has it shown that the parking charge notices were validly issued. The lack of adequate signage and the unlawful nature of the additional charges further invalidate the claimant’s claim. The claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents. I ask the court to dismiss the claim and award appropriate costs for the time and effort expended in defending against these unjust claims. 

 

20.   I ask the Judge to consider the persuasive appeal judgments from His Honour Judge Murch in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (August 2023) and Her Honour Judge Evans in Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (May 2024). In Chan, the particulars of claim, though vague, at least indicated the nature of the alleged contravention. In contrast, the POCs in this case make no attempt to identify the alleged breach or conduct relied upon. Similarly, in Akande, the Court emphasised that POC must set out the basic facts upon which a party relies to prove its case. In both cases, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

 

21.   There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

 

22.   Attention is drawn specifically to the (often seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

 

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Defendant’s signature: 

Date: 

 

@Coupon-mad  sorry for tagging you, but would really appreciate if you could take a look with your experienced eyes.

Coupon-mad

Yes that looks good if the POC didn't specify the breach (I didn't check).

headonfire

Thank you @Coupon-mad.

The POC doesn’t give a reason, and only says it’s in breach of the Terms and Cs signs.

Coupon-mad

Great, that's the correct WS version then.