MET Parking - DCB Legal Letter of Claim for Overstay

peacefulwarrior2023

Issue date is 19/03/25

I haven't filed an Acknowledgement of Service yet. Planning to do it tonight or tomorrow. That would be OK. Right? 

Gr1pr

Yes, thats OK,  ideally between day 5 and day 19, so pull that trigger 

peacefulwarrior2023

At this stage I will just be acknowledging service and ask for 28 days. Correct?

Gr1pr

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

At this stage I will just be acknowledging service . Correct?

Just follow the AOS advice in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  second post 

peacefulwarrior2023

AoS done. Will be in touch re: defence. Thank you all

peacefulwarrior2023

Hi all.

Drafting defence.

- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 19 Mar 2025. 

- DCB Legal representing MET Parking
- AoS submitted via MCOL 25/03/2025
- Nothing else done on MCOL, treating as read-only.

- According to my calculations, I have until 20/04/2025 to submit my defence. Correct?

- This is for an alleged contravention more than 5 years ago. Driver was in the vehicle for the entire duration of the stay. As someone else observed this may still be deemed as parking

Please let me know what you think of the below. I used posts submitted by @shahib_02

Anything else I can use as defence?

Thank you all in advance.

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 10/09/2019
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Overstay
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

MET Parking Services Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (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').

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 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 the driver at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 10/09/2019" (the date of the alleged overstay).  The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4.     The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

 

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.


Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Many Thanks

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.

peacefulwarrior2023

Thank you @Coupon-mad

Defence file sent to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and auto-reply received from both. Will keep you posted

Marcus12b

How did you get on with this claim you had?

Coupon-mad

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

Thank you @Coupon-mad

Defence file sent to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and auto-reply received from both. Will keep you posted

I assume you are awaiting a hearing date?

While your case is quiet, before the end of next week please please do the government's Public Consultation.

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.