Stansted McDonalds County Court Claim

Coupon-mad

Why not just search the forum for MET Claim?

patient_dream

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.

You have to turn left from Southgate Road into Southgate Park and with the BP garage ahead, it's a further left to reach Mcdonalds and Starbucks as clearly demonstrated by Joe Lycett

You will see in this picture when entering the BP garage there is a PPC sign which no doubt is MET ... BUT THAT CAN ONLY REFER TO THE GARAGE
https://motorwayservices.uk/wiki/images/c/c5/BP_Stansted_2023.jpg

As far as people leaving their car and going to the airport, they would have a long haul walking along a dual carriageway.

Doubt a judge would connect to Youtube. If you have a laptop, download the video to a USB stick and take the laptop with you.

Maybe Yasmin Mia who signed the statement of truth with a fake add-on should visit the site to actually see the biggest airport SCAM

mcdeesparkingfine

Thank you @patient_dream for the comments and @ Coupon-mad for your search suggestions. I have used them to read through multiple threads on this. Most defences I have seen rely on the PoFA argument and I am still unsure whether this could apply in this case given my post above. 

B789

If you're unsure whether the defendant did identify as the driver, an SAR will reveal that. However, do not wait for the SAR. Just get on with the defence and use the PoFA argument anyway. If it is not relevant then so be it, but at least it is in the defence if required. This is a claim for an almost 5 year old PCN. As it's been given to DCB Legal, it should be discontinued eventually.


Like the template defence, it is a wide net that is cast to counter all possible arguments from the robo-claim specialists.

mcdeesparkingfine

perfect. thank you for that advice. I will get a SAR out and prepare the template as suggested. 

mcdeesparkingfine

With sincere thanks for advice so far, I have taken KISS to heart and prepared the below, focused on a) this not being relevant land for the purpose of the POFA, b) the inadequacy of the signage and c) the inadequacy of the POC. Please do critique away. Have I now gone too far in the other direction in terms of brevity and simplicity? I have also sent the SAR to met parking so will see what that turns up. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2. Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws. POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
3. The Defendant avers that the parking signage at the site in question was wholly inadequate, misleading and confusing, and no consideration flowed between the driver and the Claimant. The inadequacy of the signage on this site has been widely reported in the media [will insert links] and therefore cannot, reasonably, be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Driver.
4. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. The Defendant is unable, therefore, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

KeithP

Defences are usually written in the third person.
I.e. there is no place in a Defence for the word 'I'.
For example, perhaps "As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable..." would be better written as "As the registered keeper the Defendant is not legally liable...".
And "I put the Operator to strict proof ..." could change to "The operator is put to strict proof...".

mcdeesparkingfine

Oh, thank you! Have tweaked as below: 

1.       The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2.       Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. The Operator is put to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would be required to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws. POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

3.       The Defendant avers that the parking signage at the site in question was wholly inadequate, misleading and confusing, and no consideration flowed between the driver and the Claimant. The inadequacy of the signage on this site has been widely reported in the media [will insert links] and therefore cannot, reasonably, be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Driver.

4.       The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. The Defendant is unable, therefore, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

patient_dream

This case is very important to you, us and every motorist.

What DCBL does remains to be seen but the consequences are grave for a SRA legal to take a proven scam to court

MET are BPA members and as such they are allowed to request information from the DVLA. Such a requst must be reasonable and honest.
Does the DVLA give out information to a well known scam ???

Even when DCBL discontinue, this must be taken further

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012".

A Judge doesn't care what a POPLA clerk thought seven years ago!  It is stronger to simply state what you already stated above that.