MET Parking taking me to court N1 received Help!

Coupon-mad

Lakoko said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad. Please how do I get the thread to prepare for the face to face hearing. Thanks

You've posted right under my signature...

Lakoko

Ok please where can I found newbies thread. I am finding it difficult to navigate this site

Fruitcake

Lakoko said:

Ok please where can I found newbies thread. I am finding it difficult to navigate this site

Coupon-mad said:

Lakoko said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad. Please how do I get the thread to prepare for the face to face hearing. Thanks

You've posted right under my signature...

There is a clue right there.

PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD

Coupon-mad

Lakoko said:

Ok please where can I found newbies thread. I am finding it difficult to navigate this site

Which is why my signature tells everyone where to click at the top of any page to get to page 1.

This is why I show the words below every post I make ...

mamqa

Coupon-mad said:

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT THOSE EXAMPLES ARE OLD SO DO NOT USE THEM IN FULL. USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE.

The rest of the template with paragraphs numbered by you, becomes #6 onwards.

NOTHING IS TO BE DELETED FROM THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE

Hi @Coupon-mad - I'm quite confused about the Defence template.

(i) The CEL vs Chan but also (ii) the points for Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government, CRA breaches, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished, Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR before the Conclusion and Statement of Truth.

Firstly, is CEL v Chan used on all claims? Because see attached Claim Form with 'Particulars of Claim' - would it be valid to cite the Chan case here? Because it does mention breach/reason as 'The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Parked In AN Area Where NO Parking Is Allowed'.

Just to summarise what happened, the Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office was closing at 10am. The offence occurred at 9:55am. There were double yellow lines but I didn’t notice any additional notices especially given the pressure of time running out before the delivery office closed. I was actually only inside the delivery office for about 4 mins. I don’t live in Oxford myself anymore so I’m not too familiar with the area and didn’t realise it has changed so much.

Funnily enough, I actually spoke to the organisations (IPIF and JLL (IPIF c/o JLL)) who Nuffield Industrial Estate seems to be in care of and IPIF and JLL both wrote back to me via email to say the below:

“IPIF: we do not operate any form of parking control at this estate.”

“JLL: UKPC are not operating under instruction from us so I am afraid that you need to resolve the matter with them. It is possible that they are appointed by Royal Mail – have you tried that route?”

And then I also spoke to Royal Mail via Phone and they said they don't issue parking tickets at that site.

I've attached the Claim Form below. I submitted the Acknowledge of Service online on Day 14 (because I only received the letter on the 11th day on a Saturday and Appeal A Parking Ticket who I had paid to help me with this have so far have failed. Now they want extra fees to deal with the court stage so I've decided to go on this journey myself after reading the successful posts vs DCB Legal.

Below the claim form picture I've drafted my 'Defence' using your Template - please let me know any amendments.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

MY NAME                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) 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 based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th 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'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

[INSERTED 4 CEL V CHAN TRANSCRIPT PICS]

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office, located opposite to where the Defendant parked his car.

6. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

7. The Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office was closing at 10am. The offence occurred at 9:55am. There were double yellow lines but The Defendant didn’t notice any additional notices especially given the pressure of time running out before the delivery office closed. The Defendant was inside the delivery office for about 4 mins. The Defendant doesn’t live in Oxford theirself anymore so The Defendant not familiar with the area and didn’t realise it has changed.

8. The Defendant spoke to the organisations (IPIF and JLL (IPIF c/o JLL)) who Nuffield Industrial Estate seems to be in care of and IPIF and JLL both wrote back to The Defendant via email to say:

8.1. IPIF: “We do not operate any form of parking control at this estate.”

8.2. JLL: “UKPC are not operating under instruction from us so I am afraid that you need to resolve the matter with them. It is possible that they are appointed by Royal Mail – have you tried that route?”

8.3. And then The Defendant also spoke to Royal Mail via Phone and they said they don't issue parking tickets at that site.

9. The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. It was only upon a subsequent revisit to the area that several critical facts about the signage were established. Firstly, the sign on the building wall distant from view.

9.1. Additionally, the existing signage on the wall was found to be positioned at an elevated and obscure location on the building.

9.2. Furthermore, the signage was unlit, substantially diminishing its visibility, especially during times of low light, thus impacting its effectiveness in conveying the necessary information to motorists who visit at night.

[THEN INSERTED ALL POINTS FOR Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government, CRA breaches, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished, Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR, Conclusion and Statement of Truth]

Awakeatnight

Just to check, I've just filed an acknowledgement of service but the particulars of the claim only state the date of the offence and the car park its alleged to have happened in. When can I expect to receive the actual evidence and detail of the claim against me, e.g any photographic evidence, time of the offence, evidence of their signage, that the machine was working etc? Otherwise how can I defend myself properly against it? 

Coupon-mad

By using the defence linked in the third paragraph of the Template Defence itself.