Civil National Business Centre FIne

HS2K

Hi all,

First time poster but long view of the forum. Thought id start my thread about my experience and ask for the support of the community.

Now a few days ago i received a letter from the "Civil National Business Centre" for my parking charge at Stansted Airport Mcdonalds. In 2018 i believe in parked in Starbucks area and walked over to Mcdonalds as the car park was full. The Starbucks area is allocated for just Starbucks customers but the signs are so poor I had no idea. MET Parking Services and BCD legal have done the usual letters asking for payment that increases over time.
- I say believe as when i enter the PCN number into MET parking nothing comes up on their website. Pretty positive im correct.

I had ignored the previous letters about the parking charge notice until now as its more official than the previous.
The sum they want is a total of £328.28.

The issue date is 18th September 2023. Now iv read previous threads and the NEWBIES section.
Firstly Im going to fill in the Acknowledgment of Service form to buy me more time to create my defence.

By me doing this, do we feel i have a strong case and the charge will be dropped once i send the defence over? Or am i better off paying and forget?

Thanks all!
 

KeithP

HS2K said:

The issue date is 18th September 2023. Now iv read previous threads and the NEWBIES section.
Firstly Im going to fill in the Acknowledgment of Service form to buy me more time to create my defence.

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th September, you have until Monday 9th October to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

Umkomaas

@KeithP will be along soon to give you some pointers to getting your Defence underway. 

By me doing this, do we feel i have a strong case and the charge will be dropped once i send the defence over? Or am i better off paying and forget?

It may well take much longer to achieve than simply 'sending the defence over'.  You will have to ride the wave until such time as you receive a discontinuation, or have your day in court. 

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

@KeithP will be along soon to give you some pointers to getting your Defence underway. 

By me doing this, do we feel i have a strong case and the charge will be dropped once i send the defence over? Or am i better off paying and forget?

It may well take much longer to achieve than simply 'sending the defence over'.  You will have to ride the wave until such time as you receive a discontinuation, or have your day in court. 

Ha, he's beaten you to it!  Good advice for the OP there.

Umkomaas

Le_Kirk said:p

Umkomaas said:

@KeithP will be along soon to give you some pointers to getting your Defence underway. 

By me doing this, do we feel i have a strong case and the charge will be dropped once i send the defence over? Or am i better off paying and forget?

It may well take much longer to achieve than simply 'sending the defence over'.  You will have to ride the wave until such time as you receive a discontinuation, or have your day in court. 

Ha, he's beaten you to it!  Good advice for the OP there.

Ha, Quick Draw McGraw! 🔫 😄

HS2K

Acknowledgment of Service Completed this evening. Template was super helpful and clear.

Time to create a defence.

HS2K

Okay first draft. To reiterate Mcdonalds car park at Stansted Airport Services was full of users and airport taxis taking advantage of the 2h max stay to be close to the drop off.... So i drove out and into the next car park which is deemed to be only Starbucks customers only. There is then another car park which is located past this section which is deemed as "overflow" but the signs are so poor stating where your allowed to park if you eat at what restaurant, I had no idea. The car parks are accessed by the same entrance. Quick google street view will show you if you may not be familiar.

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 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.

3. The alleged parking event is said to have taken place in 2018. The defendant wanted to park and eat inside the McDonalds restaurant, however all of the parking spaces located outside were occupied. Thus the defendant resulted in driving around to the nearest available parking space located in the same facility. 

Unknown to the defendant the next area of parking spaces located in the same facility was only permitted for Starbucks customers. The signage separating the designating parking areas are not easily identifiable and unclear at the time which causes confusion. The separate parking areas are all visually the same with no distinction that the defendant was parking in a wrong zone.

Open to all critique, thanks all!

1505grandad

" 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."

What do the PoC on the claim actually state?  -  you are giving details in the D which may not be in the PoC

Coupon-mad

HS2K said:

Okay first draft. To reiterate Mcdonalds car park at Stansted Airport Services was full of users and airport taxis taking advantage of the 2h max stay to be close to the drop off.... So i drove out and into the next car park which is deemed to be only Starbucks customers only. There is then another car park which is located past this section which is deemed as "overflow" but the signs are so poor stating where your allowed to park if you eat at what restaurant, I had no idea. The car parks are accessed by the same entrance. Quick google street view will show you if you may not be familiar.

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 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.

3. The alleged parking event is said to have taken place in 2018. The defendant wanted to park and eat inside the McDonalds restaurant, however all of the parking spaces located outside were occupied. Thus the defendant resulted in driving around to the nearest available parking space located in the same facility. 

Unknown to the defendant the next area of parking spaces located in the same facility was only permitted for Starbucks customers. The signage separating the designating parking areas are not easily identifiable and unclear at the time which causes confusion. The separate parking areas are all visually the same with no distinction that the defendant was parking in a wrong zone.

Open to all critique, thanks all!

A good start but you need to show us the POC, and search the forum for:

Gladstones deplorable 10.25% interest

and 

read & copy the defence by @Rorythoperr because you need to add the judgments striking out claims for lack of ropey pleaded POC. Which is why we need to see it.

UncleThomasCobley

Why are you admitting to being the driver? This is non-relevant land and they do not know the identity of the driver. You should be responding as the RK only.

patient_dream

YOU DO NOT OWE £328.28 ..... DCBL has added fake amounts

The site is a mega scam site operatied by MET .....

Joe Lycett CHALLENGES Met Parking's Tickets at Confusing Car Parks

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

Will DCBL actually take a mega known scam to court ?
Or will they discontinue in their normal fashion when they realise you are not a mug, a court spanking awaits them and you can claim your costs