County Court Claim Form - MET Parking via DCB Legal

Denji11

Hi all,

 

I have received a claim for three MET parking tickets dating back to 12/2017, 01/2018 and 02/2018. To date, all correspondence has been ignored and the only communication has been to MET for information on the claims (This was requested via email 11/22 and 07/23 to which they responded with images and scans of the windscreen tickets 07/23).

Issue Date: 09/08/23

Day of Service: 14/08/23

AOS: 27/08/23

Defence Deadline: 11/09/23

I have filed an AOS however I think I have made another mistake (the first being leaving this so long) as I responded with “I intend to defend part of this claim”. Reason for this is that in one of the images sent there is a sign quite clearly apparent in front of the vehicle which I thought was clearly my own fault for not noticing or paying attention to… After reading some info within this forum perhaps that was a mistake as the signs, from memory and Google street images, do not seem to have all relevant information and are extremely small and hard to read.

Furthermore, when the vehicle was first parked it would have been 06:30am (to arrive for work before 7am) which during the winter months December and January would have been pitch black outside and none of the signs are illuminated.

 

I feel as if I have no real leg to stand on with these claims as I have three for the same location, the only argument I have here is that at the time the tickets were issued a lot of people were parking in these locations to work at the construction site Royal Wharf. The tickets were being handed out so regularly others who were working on the site and/or residents in the area were pulling tickets off cars and placing tickets from one car to another. I cannot fully recall if I took the ticket from my own windscreen or not as its over 5 years ago.

 

Anyway, Defence to follow shortly, hopefully I can curate something solid enough to avoid these charges which are now totalling £890…. Doh.

 

Many thanks,

Images below:

Denji11

First draft defence. From 3.3 onwards I have left the full template as advised:

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 Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3.1 The Defendant disputes that the signage present at the location where the alleged parking contraventions occurred was of sufficient size and illumination. The purported contraventions took place at approximately 6:30 am during the winter months, resulting in darkness. The lack of adequate illumination made the signage difficult to read, and consequently, any purported contract based on such signage is considered void.

3.2 The Defendant asserts that the poor visibility of the signage prevented them from being reasonably aware of the parking terms and conditions. The establishment of a valid contractual agreement requires all parties to be adequately informed and capable of providing informed consent. In this scenario, the signage provided by the Claimant fell short of this basic requirement, thereby rendering any potential contractual arrangement invalid.

3.3 Additionally, it is worth noting that during the time in question, a considerable number of individuals associated with the construction site "Royal Wharf" were frequently issued with parking tickets. This environment saw instances of individuals removing tickets from vehicles and in some cases placing them onto others. This practice introduced uncertainty that the ticket remained on the vehicle when the defendant returned to it after a full day’s work (17:00). No evidence of tickets remaining on the vehicle beyond this time has been provided and all timestamps are before 12:00 midday. Such actions suggest that the tickets may not necessarily have indicated genuine parking contraventions as they could have been subject to deliberate manipulation.

KeithP

Denji11 said:

Day of Service: 14/08/23

AOS: 27/08/23

Defence Deadline: 11/09/23

Yes you are right with your Defence filing deadline but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th September 2023 to file your Defence.

That's that's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

B789

You are responding to the PoC which state:



Your defence paragraphs are fleshing out the woefully inadequate PoC and therefore doing the claimant's work for them. We have already seen today another claim through the same robo-claim solicitor as this being thrown out and them having to reissue the claim with enhanced PoC.

Leave all the detail for your WS. You only need to say your reason for being at the location and that there was no prominent or obvious signage on a very dark early winter morning. Let the claimant prove otherwise. 

However, looking at the photo you have provided, the car is parked right in front of one of UKPCs terrible signs, in daylight.

Coupon-mad

You can't defend if you made a part admission.  This is serious and a big mistake.  You must put this right.

Phone up the CNBC and stay on the line (might take over an hour) and tell them you ticked that box in error.  Ask them to remove the AOS so you can immediately put the right one in while they are on the phone.

Denji11

Ok, I'll ring them first thing tomorrow morning. Thanks @Coupon-mad. 

In response to @B789, yeah hence the part admission as the photo does look bad. However, at 06:30 in the morning during winter it wouldn't have been so clear... all the photos sent are closer to midday. 

Thanks both for the quick responses. 

B789

Easy to defend. In your WS, you'd state the fact that it was a dark, mid-winter morning and you put the claimant to strict proof of the visibility of the signage at the time of initiating the parking, not several hours later. It is for the claimant to prove, not for you to disprove.

Denji11

Ok, this makes me feel a little less stressed about all of this and potentially needing to cough up almost 1k which I can no way near afford. 

Sorry @Coupon-mad or @B789 if you know, what is CNBC ? Cant see this abbreviation on the newbies thread... Assuming its County Court Business Center? 

Thanks again

KeithP

Denji11 said:

...if you know, what is CNBC ? Cant see this abbreviation on the newbies thread... Assuming its County Court Business Center? 

CNBC = Civil National Business Centre which is the new name introduced very recently (14 August 2023) to replace CCBC - County Court Business Centre.

Coupon-mad

Yes they changed their name this month.  Pointless rebranding of a useless Claimant-biased conveyor belt 'service' (in our experience).

Denji11

Good morning all, 

Just got off the phone to firstly CNBC, who said they cannot change anything as it was submitted via MCOL, they put me through to MCOL and they cannot do anything either apparently (also doesn't help that I now cant seem to get back into MCOL either) 

They have suggested emailing [email protected] requesting the change. In short they said as its already filed then to change I would have to withdraw, then resubmit which would warrant a court fee ? I stressed my concern so the person I was speaking to checked with their superior who said the same. Apparently as long as I submit my defence, clearly stating my intention to disagree with the claim in full and email BCAQ letting them know what's happened I should be ok. 

So now emailing [email protected], will keep you posted.