MET Parking - DCB Legal Letter of Claim for Overstay

Le_Kirk

Using the Gov.uk court finder, I discovered that the enquiries@ to be the most appropriate - at least you can ask them; did your Notice of Allocation not say to which email address you must send your documents?

peacefulwarrior2023

Coupon-mad said:

Clever judge, requiring WS & exhibits so far in advance! They know DCB Legal will discontinue. What's the deadline for them to pay the hearing fee?

Jan 5th 2026

peacefulwarrior2023

Le_Kirk said:

Using the Gov.uk court finder, I discovered that the enquiries@ to be the most appropriate - at least you can ask them; did your Notice of Allocation not say to which email address you must send your documents?

Can't see any email address for them on the Notice of Allocation

Le_Kirk

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Using the Gov.uk court finder, I discovered that the enquiries@ to be the most appropriate - at least you can ask them; did your Notice of Allocation not say to which email address you must send your documents?

Can't see any email address for them on the Notice of Allocation

If you have time, I would send an email enquiry to enguiries@........ and ask them.

peacefulwarrior2023

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

My concern is that I don't have pics of the signage etc to include as exhibits.

Additionally to this point I read the draft WS written by Coupon_mad I believe and that was posted on Dropbox.

I'm not sure i understand why to include the suggested paragraphs from the Beavis case as they are saying that the charge imposed by ParkingEye is not unreasonable.

peacefulwarrior2023

Le_Kirk said:

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Using the Gov.uk court finder, I discovered that the enquiries@ to be the most appropriate - at least you can ask them; did your Notice of Allocation not say to which email address you must send your documents?

Can't see any email address for them on the Notice of Allocation

If you have time, I would send an email enquiry to enguiries@........ and ask them.

OK will do. Thanks

Coupon-mad

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

My concern is that I don't have pics of the signage etc to include as exhibits.

Additionally to this point I read the draft WS written by Coupon_mad I believe and that was posted on Dropbox.

I'm not sure i understand why to include the suggested paragraphs from the Beavis case as they are saying that the charge imposed by ParkingEye is not unreasonable.

There is no WS example written by me. The Beavis paragraphs say that an £85 PCN (that covered all letter chain costs, plus a significant profit) was not unreasonable. Compare that with the sum of money you are being pursued for. Not £85 is it?!

They are trying to get the costs of the automated letter chain twice. It's double recovery. This is explained in Excel v Wilkinson, which is another recommended exhibit.

Two recent good WS examples that include the new Mazur case (that you also need!) are by

@mtrolley123

@maxim024

peacefulwarrior2023

There is no WS example written by me. The Beavis paragraphs say that an £85 PCN (that covered all letter chain costs, plus a significant profit) was not unreasonable. Compare that with the sum of money you are being pursued for. Not £85 is it?!

They are trying to get the costs of the automated letter chain twice. It's double recovery. This is explained in Excel v Wilkinson, which is another recommended exhibit.

Two recent good WS examples that include the new Mazur case (that you also need!) are by

@mtrolley123

@maxim024

Thank you for this. I will look into these and draft something by tonight I hope

peacefulwarrior2023

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

Le_Kirk said:

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Using the Gov.uk court finder, I discovered that the enquiries@ to be the most appropriate - at least you can ask them; did your Notice of Allocation not say to which email address you must send your documents?

Can't see any email address for them on the Notice of Allocation

If you have time, I would send an email enquiry to enguiries@........ and ask them.

OK will do. Thanks

The enquiries mailbox answered confirming that this is indeed the right email address

peacefulwarrior2023

Please see below my WS (haven't received anything from DCB Legal yet and the deadline to submit WS is on Monday Nov 17th). I appreciate the short notice but any advice would be gratefully received.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

MET Parking Services LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am XXXXXXX of [Redacted address] , and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, registration number {REDACTED VRN], on the date of the alleged event. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.


2. Throughout this statement, I will refer to exhibits contained within this witness statement, identifying them by page / paragraphs where necessary. I appear before the court as a litigant in person and do not have formal legal representation or training. I have done my utmost to set out my case and supporting evidence clearly and honestly, and I respectfully ask the court to bear this in mind.

Background and timeline

1. I entered the car park at BP Stansted SF Connect, Stansted on September 9th 2019. This was more than six years ago and therefore I cannot recall the exact time of entering and leaving the car park. I do remember though that I had to take a phone call that lasted for some time. I didn’t leave the vehicle and remained in it for the entire duration of the stay.

2. I did not see any clear signage at the entrance to indicate the terms of parking. The responsibility is on the Claimant to make terms clear to all motorists which they failed to do. Additionally, the Claimant must ensure that any contractual terms are entirely illegible from any reasonable distance, let alone from a moving vehicle. As this was not clearly displayed my position is that no clear contract was offered.

3. I subsequently received in the post, to my surprise, a PCN for an alleged overstay.

   
   
   

   Procedural defects in the Claimant’s case

4. The POC are sparse and do not comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. They do not plead the contract terms, how any contract was formed, or how the sum of £170 is calculated.

5. They simply assert that a PCN was issued and that I am indebted. The assertion that a PCN was issued on 10/09/2019 is also untrue as a PCN was never issued on the day. That date mentioned is simply the date of the alleged overstay for which a subsequent PCN was issued and posted.

6. The PoC are signed by Sarah Ensall, described as the "Claimant’s legal representative", but there is no evidence that she is a solicitor or that she has the formal authorisation required under CPR 22.1 and Practice Direction 22 to sign a statement of truth on behalf of the Claimant.

7. CPR 22.1(6) and PD 22, paragraph 3.9, require that:

   1. If signed by a legal representative, they must be a solicitor or a person formally authorised by the Claimant.

   2. The signatory must be responsible for the conduct of the case.

8. Sarah Ensall is not a solicitor, and the Claimant has not provided evidence that she has explicit authorisation to sign statements of truth on behalf of MET Parking. The Claimant must demonstrate that she has the required formal standing to sign the PoC. If she does not, the statement of truth is defective, and the PoC are procedurally invalid.

9. I wish to draw the court's attention to the High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. This case confirmed that it is unlawful for an unqualified paralegal to have day-to-day conduct of litigation, as this is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. See exhibit NF (a) in the Appendix below for a link to this case.

10. The PoC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5. The Claimant had an obligation to fully particularise the claim at the time of issuing proceedings but failed to:

    1. Set out the exact wording of the clause(s) of the terms and conditions relied upon.

    2. Adequately explain how the terms of the alleged contract were incorporated or why I am said to be in breach.

11. In light of these procedural defects, I submit that:

    1. The PoC are inadequately pleaded, do not comply with CPR 16.4, and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

    2. The statement of truth on the PoC is defective, as the Claimant has not demonstrated that Sarah Ensall was properly authorised to sign on their behalf.

       Exaggerated Claim

12. 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.


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

    1. the alleged breach, and

    2. 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 on the day of an alleged parking event.

14. 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.


15. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice in which The Code's Ministerial Foreword was damning:
"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."

16. 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 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 in exhibit NF(b) in the Appendix below.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.


20. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case') (see exhibit NF (c) below in the Appendix). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) (see exhibit NF (d) below in the Appendix) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal'.


21. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.
 The Claimant is also seeking additional “debt recovery” fees. As confirmed in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) (See exhibit NF (e) in the Appendix below) such inflated sums are unlawful and unenforceable.

22. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.


23. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

24. The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.


25. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.


Appendix – Exhibits - NF

1. Mazur case: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html

2. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

3. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf

4. https://vlex.co.uk/vid/parkingeye-ltd-v-somerfield-793737517

5. https://www.scribd.com/document/889427762/G4QZ465V-Excel-v-Wilkinson-

Conclusion

In summary, this claim is without merit. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Particulars of Claim are vague, the signage relied upon is inadequate, and the alleged breach has not been properly evidenced.

The authorities I have referred to make it clear that poorly pleaded claims such as this should not proceed. Furthermore, the attempt to impose unfair and disproportionate additional costs is contrary to government guidance and established case law.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the claim should be struck out or dismissed in its entirety.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts set out in this witness statement are true. I am aware that if I make, or cause to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief in its truth, I may be subject to proceedings for contempt of court.

Signed: