IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

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

12346

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 153,389 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    That's not long enough.

    Same advice as here re the judgments exhibit:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80860207/#Comment_80860207
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • nightfly99
    nightfly99 Posts: 34 Forumite
    10 Posts
    That's not long enough.

    Same advice as here re the judgments exhibit:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80860207/#Comment_80860207
    Cheers for your relentless replies to everyone on this forum. I've added more.

    I really need to get this submitted today as I'm away this weekend. Should the Claimant also be emailing me their info they will be using in court? What happens if I do not receive it by the min 14 days prior to hearing? 

    1.          I am XXX. and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts I’ve provided below are true to the best of my knowledge.

     

    2.      I deny that I own or have ever owned the vehicle with the registration XXX as per the Particulars of Claim provided by the Claimant. I do not confirm nor deny that I have ever driven this vehicle, but I do not recognise it.

     

    3.      The Particulars of Claim (See Exhibit A) are poorly worded and there is now a persuasive Appeal judgement (case: Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan) to support striking out the claim based on badly written Particulars of Claim. The dates that the Claimant have mentioned are also very confusing and badly written; with the date of the alleged breach being mentioned as “2021-11-21” and the date of interest being added from “19/12/21” which would indicate interest being added 2 years prior to the alleged breach of contract.

     

    4.      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 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, His Honour Judge 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (See Exhibit B).

     

    5.      Similarly, in the County Court at Peterborough on 27th October 2023 and the County Court at Reading on 21st December 2023, both District Judges struck off the claims before even reaching the hearing stage due to inadequate details in the Particulars of Claim (See Exhibit C).

     

    6.      Furthermore, as the Defendant should be aware, they had a case struck out in April 2024, at the exact same location as the alleged breach in this case. (See Exhibit D).

     

    7.      The Particulars of Claim do not state what terms and conditions were breached, it does not specify who the owner or driver is and is adding interest from a date two years prior to the alleged breach. This case should be struck out.


    8.      Notwithstanding paragraph 2, I know this car park very well as I live close by. On the surface, this is a simple one way in, one way out car park with both a Starbucks and McDonalds restaurant located next to each other. By all intents and purposes, this is one car park that is owned by the Claimant. Unfortunately, as the Particulars of Claim do not state what terms and conditions have been breached, I can only assume that the alleged breach has been an over-stay of 90 minutes or, what this car park is notoriously known for, that the Claimant has divided the car park into two separate car parks and is alleging that the breach has been that someone has parked on one side of the car park and gone into the ‘wrong’ restaurant (See Exhibit E).

     

    9.      To highlight the absurdity of this car park and its owners (the Claimant), comedian Joe Lycett did a segment on Channel 4 which makes a mockery of this car park and ultimately, this case (See Exhibit F). I hope you were able to watch the video prior to this hearing, if not, I urge you to take time to watch it, as it is eye-opening.

     

    10.       The signage should be helpful, but it isn’t. The text is small and on unclear signs (see Exhibit E) and there is no physical nor obvious partition to this being two car parks. I believe this is done on purpose for the sole reason of penalising honest motorists. If the Claimant wanted people to know that these are two different car parks, the signs should be clearer upon entrance and both car parks should be screened from each other, with their own entrances and exits. I ask the pertinent question as to why this is not done? I think we know the answer.

     

    11.     The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

     

    12.       I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

    (i) the alleged breach, and

    (ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue two years before of the alleged parking event (see Paragraph 3).

     

    13.      This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.


    14.    The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 2022, here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

    "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."


    15.     Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf


    16.   Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

     

    17.   With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

     

    18.   The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

     

     19. In conclusion, I believe that this case should be struck out and should never have reached this stage. The Particulars of Claim do not detail what alleged breach of contract has occurred, the dates do not add up and has been hastily put together undermining the Courts. Due to the lack of detail, I, as the Defendant am not entirely sure why this case is being brought against me and have had to make assumptions based on what little information I have from the Particulars of Claim. The fees are also overinflated as evidenced in this Witness Statement.


    20.  I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14. I have had to book precious holiday leave from work and I’ve spent countless hours putting together my Defence and Witness Statement.

     

     


  • nightfly99
    nightfly99 Posts: 34 Forumite
    10 Posts
    I made some tweaks to the above and sent it off. 
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 41,296 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 28 June 2024 at 10:50PM
    Did you also send a copy of your Witness Statement and evidence to the Claimant?

  • nightfly99
    nightfly99 Posts: 34 Forumite
    10 Posts
    KeithP said:
    Did you also send a copy of your Witness Statement and evidence to the Claimant?

    Yes I did.

    Deadline is Monday but I'm away for a few days.

    I wish I had spent more time on this but such is life.
  • LDast
    LDast Posts: 2,496 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    In para #8, you state that the car park is "owned" by the claimant. It almost certainly is not owned by them. It is one car park but mendaciously operated as two separate car parks by the claimant.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 153,389 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Nice. You can cover any other points at the hearing when it's your turn to speak. 
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 153,389 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Yay you won!

    ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

     :D 
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • TRIO74
    TRIO74 Posts: 64 Forumite
    Third Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    That is fantastic news, I have been on hols and wondered how you got on over the past couple of weeks. This gives me some confidence that i will also be successful and can finally get over this horrendous experience.

Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.