Stansted McDonalds County Court Claim

patient_dream

wow, I don't normally comment on statements / defence as there are others more wise than me.

BUT, THAT IS BRILLIANT and to all those who helped

If this does end up in court, I would imagine DCBL have a shock in store.

This is so powerful that it will be discontinued

Will you be happy with that or like most people want further action

Coupon-mad

mcdeesparkingfine said:

With very many thanks @Coupon-mad, this is the final defence using your most up to date template (just need to insert the claim number and driver name). Will submit in accordance with the instructions this week and keep the forum up to date on progress. 

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant is a non-native English speaker who has had help to draft this defence and with a fruitless appeal to the unfair parking charge at the time, but has not kept a copy of the dispute or reply.  This was almost six years ago.  The hazy recollection is that the car was at all material times properly parked and authorised.  It is thought that this was a day of two visits (possibly two different drivers) with the vehicle leaving and returning later with other family, who were genuine patrons of McDonalds.  The Defendant cannot tell from the POC whether the allegation he has to answer is an alleged overstay, or something else.  Any contractual breach is denied. The site is notorious for spurious PCNs for 'parking on the wrong side' and this scam has even featured on national television.

4.  This site is also Airport land, which 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.

5.  Subsequent research by the defendant shows that the parking signage at the site in question and the boundary delineation between purported areas was wholly inadequate, misleading and confusing, and therefore cannot reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the driver(s). The Claimant is put to strict proof that, at the time of the parking event, the signs and lines were prominent and clearly visible on the site in question and that this incident was a single 'period of parking', and not two visits.  As well as images of the actual signs and delineation of the boundaries, ANPR raw data is required, showing every capture of the vehicle that day as it traversed and returned/left the site, or an area within the site.

6.  The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

7.  The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

... 

I suggest adding the above. Re-number the rest if needed but your draft was confusing as it had the wrong Claimant and no para 3.

KeithP

mcdeesparkingfine said:

...this is the final defence using your most up to date template (just need to insert the claim number and driver name). 

Really??

I can understand you needing to add the Defendant's name, but the name of the driver?

Please do take care.

Coupon-mad

And this is totally wrong:

DCB Legal LTD

(Claimant) 

That section says: 'NOT THE SOLICITORS'... 

I can't make the template much clearer.

mcdeesparkingfine

wow, very many thanks for that @Coupon-mad. I'll make those changes before sending

Coupon-mad

And put the Claimant right.

mcdeesparkingfine

Ah yes, I overlooked that! Once again, many, many thanks for your help

1505grandad

You must state the correct name of the claimant  -  it is not DCBL

mcdeesparkingfine

Yes I have amended it to Met Parking Service Ltd. Thank you!

KeithP

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's MET Parking Services Ltd.