CST Law - Stansted McDonald's Carpark - MET Parking Services edit: *court date*

nightfly99

Coupon-mad said:

You didn't show us para 2 & 3 and the CEL v Chan images, but I presume you have them in your document.

Coupon-mad said:

You didn't show us para 2 & 3 and the CEL v Chan images, but I presume you have them in your document.

Yes, I took them from hharry. I'll post the whole defence tomorrow just to be 100% sure.

Do I want to be early with submitting defence or should I push it back? Does it matter?

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter.

And only show us the first third of the defence please! Not the whole Template ... spare us!

nightfly99

Coupon-mad said:

Doesn't matter.

And only show us the first third of the defence please! Not the whole Template ... spare us!

The first part is as per hharry including the CEL Vs. Chan case with scans of the transcript.

This is the part altered:

-------------------------------

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. It is denied that the Defendant was the owner of this vehicle, which is not recognised. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the hirer or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant is put to strict proof, if this poorly pleaded generic claim makes it past allocation stage.  Even if the vehicle was hired, this is not 'relevant land' and there can be no hirer liability under any rule of law. Not that this Claimant has stated on what basis they might rely on 'owner' or 'hirer' liability (which in this Airport location, they cannot).

5. The Defendant is aware of this notorious car park which has been featured in the national press and on national television. Here are two examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RcNM4SM0 (Joe Lycett on Channel 4)

The Claimant says that this is two car parks, but for all intents and purposes, this is a relatively small single car park (one way in and one out) that serves Starbucks and McDonalds, which is set up for the sole reason of extorting motorists out of money. There is no clear definition between the supposed two car parks.

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

-------------------------------

The rest goes on (to point 33) followed by a statement of truth, signed and dated.

Let me know your thoughts. Thank you.

nightfly99

I'm thinking I shouldn't even be mentioning the 'two car parks' bit as the PoC doesn't say what terms and conditions were contravened.

Coupon-mad

I agree.

Make this bit para 5 instead:

It is denied that the Defendant was the owner of this vehicle, which is not recognised. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the hirer or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant is put to strict proof, if this poorly pleaded generic claim makes it past allocation stage.  Even if the vehicle was hired, this is not 'relevant land' and there can be no hirer liability under any rule of law. Not that this Claimant has stated on what basis they might rely on 'owner' or 'hirer' liability (which in this Airport location, they cannot).

nightfly99

Defence submitted via e-mail on Saturday. Email confirmation almost immediately (auto-response I gather). Logged in today and a bar has been put on the claim. I assume this means they have my defence.

nightfly99

Just got this today, ignoring I assume!

patient_dream

It does not really matter who is the driver, owner or keeper.  This MET site is a major scam site as proven by Joe Lycett

Operated by MET Parking this car park is knowingly split to extort money

We don't know what planet CST come from and they certainly don't understand what a mega scam means.  DCBL  was the MET parking favoured legal with all their rubbish ..... same place regardless who was driving, DCBL DISCONTINUED
WHY ?   because they knew they would be taking a well know scam to court

The letter is designed to scare you but asks for money ,,, begging

This is now firmly in the ball court of CST, they started it. Do they continue and face a court spanking on a scam or will they chicken out just as DCBL do

A letter to ignore as it's menacing

And as CM said ..... Not that this Claimant has stated on what basis they might rely on 'owner' or 'hirer' liability (which in this Airport location, they cannot).

nightfly99

patient_dream said:

It does not really matter who is the driver, owner or keeper.  This MET site is a major scam site as proven by Joe Lycett

Operated by MET Parking this car park is knowingly split to extort money

We don't know what planet CST come from and they certainly don't understand what a mega scam means.  DCBL  was the MET parking favoured legal with all their rubbish ..... same place regardless who was driving, DCBL DISCONTINUED
WHY ?   because they knew they would be taking a well know scam to court

The letter is designed to scare you but asks for money ,,, begging

This is now firmly in the ball court of CST, they started it. Do they continue and face a court spanking on a scam or will they chicken out just as DCBL do

A letter to ignore as it's menacing

And as CM said ..... Not that this Claimant has stated on what basis they might rely on 'owner' or 'hirer' liability (which in this Airport location, they cannot).

Cheers - what does that bit mean exactly with regards to relevant land and liability and it being an airport location? Is that a law?

Le_Kirk

nightfly99 said:

And as CM said ..... Not that this Claimant has stated on what basis they might rely on 'owner' or 'hirer' liability (which in this Airport location, they cannot).

Cheers - what does that bit mean exactly with regards to relevant land and liability and it being an airport location? Is that a law?

Airport land is not relevant land for the purposes of Protection of Freedoms Act (2012); read about it here: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
Look specifically at 1(1)a and 3(1)