Court Claim form MET parking

Fiodor

Hi all,

I'm wondering if any of you could provide any advice on my case .

Back in 2017 I parked at London southgate car park,walked over McDonald's and after I finished my meal I drove off.At the time of parking I didn't see any signs of parking machines to settle up for the car park. The first letter from MET parking arrived after 14days as it was delivered to the wrong address.I appealed to their letter and refused to pay.There was no communication from them for a while,however last week I received the letter from the court and they asking me to pay £338.68 and Yasmin Mia claims that I 'agreed to pay within 28days' but I didn't. Not sure where she's got this information from as this is not something I ever agreed to. I have appealed to the claim ,however not really sure what else I can do in my defense and don't know what to expect going forward.Any advise welcome and thanks for reading my lengthy post.

These was my defense:

Nowhere on the signage does it state:- What the site boundary is.

- Show any map of where the site boundary begins and ends.

- or that leaving the site fails to comply with terms and

conditions.I require evidence from MET Parking Services to show a

site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated

to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to

have left.There are no legible markings distinguishing the

boundary of Southgate Park. There is one entrance to the site by

vehicle. How does one know that one has left the site? McDonald’s

address (for the building in this area) is Southgate Stansted

Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY and Starbuck’s

address is London Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's

Stortford CM24 1PY, so any reasonable person would see that the

parking area around McDonald’s building is Southgate Park.

In addition, McDonald’s offers a drive-through service and the the

entry point into this would presumably (since there isn’t any

boundary marking) be from Southgate Park.

There is only one entrance to the Southgate Park site. Leaving the

site, to a reasonable person, would mean to leave the vehicle

within this boundary and go to a place 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 carpark is different to another part of the car park.

4)No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to

strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land

then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the

contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out

details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident'

exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge

cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement

dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence

to define what this operator is authorized to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to

merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that

the agent is authorized on the material date, to make contracts

with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the

charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use

disputes generally is a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often

being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case

in hand or even the site rules.Lots of articles about this parking

scamming

B789

Are you saying that that is what you submitted as your defence to the claim? Did you submit that using the MCOL portal? What is the "issue date" of your claim. Did you file your AoS and if so, on what date?

Just to get you up to speed, here is another claim for the same location that is being advised on right now: Stansted McDonalds County Court Claim.

Make sure you read the Newbies/FAQ thread, second post, to understand where you are in this process and which errors you may have made so far.

Yasmin Mia is claiming that you "agreed to pay within 28 days" because they are the terms on the signs at the car park which form the "contract" you have allegedly breached. Hopefully, after reading the Newbies/FAQ thread and answering the above questions, we will be able to help you get this discontinued as per 99% of DCB Legal claims that are robustly defended on here. 

Coupon-mad

I don't know why you didn't use the Template Defence (top of the forum for a reason).  

It looks like you 'appealed' - which was wrong - but you can build on that odd/weak defence at WS bundle stage.

Fiodor

Thank you very much for swift response to my post, greatly appreciated.

The points o mentioned I have submitted on mcol portal. I received the letter Friday last week and I responded via mcol portal on Wednesday this week. I haven't come across your group any earlier than today ,hence I didn't use your template which is a shame. I'll definitely look into the link and information you provided. Thank you so much

Coupon-mad

Come back at WS stage!

patient_dream

We do wonder who is pointing these BPA parking companies towards DCBL, especially the biggest airport parking scam by MET
This mega scam has been reported by many newspapers .... sadly DCBL has not picked this up.  They prefer to add fake amounts and with the help of Yasmin Mia sign a statement of truth to the court ....  REALLY ... Judges are not that stupid

As with all these scam claims by MET and Stansted, watch this video ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RcNM4SM0

Fiodor

This is the draft of gge defence letter. I'd really appreciate your help on getting this reviewed. Any suggestions welcome. Thanks for reading.

Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed.  The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (2020 Annual Report).  This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should lead Judges to know that a fair appeal was never on offer.

 

Conclusion

28. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out. 

29. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

30.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct 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 defence 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.

Fiodor

Sorry guys i exceeded the maximum number of characters hence ive decided to attach the full defence. 
Thank you for your support 
Please let me know know shall you have any suggestions 

Fiodor

drive.google.com/file/d/1HG6w-Xxb_vz6-EY25_7-w494c14eMEWO/view?usp=drivesdk

Le_Kirk

Fiodor said:

Sorry guys i exceeded the maximum number of characters hence ive decided to attach the full defence. 
Thank you for your support 
Please let me know know shall you have any suggestions 

We don't need to see the whole template defence, just, as it says in the thread, your paragraphs 2 & 3 or any that you have added.  The template is, well, a template and therefore doesn't need checking,  Just confirm you haven't made any changes other than paras 2 & 3.

Fiodor

Hi there 
I received acknowledgement letter from tge couet confirming that ghey received my defence.DCB legal tried tl reach me over the phone but i didny take the call. Today I received a letter form the claimant offering to lower the charge from £338.68 to £270.00. What do you suggest? Below is a copy of the letter

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

We write to you in relation to the above matter.

To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £270.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £338.68.Tgw copy of their letter below. What do you guys think? 

　　　

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:　

DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　

Sort Code: 20-24-09　　

Account no: 60964441　　

Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £270.00 we will update the Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal.　

Kind Regards,