MET Parking - DCB Legal Letter of Claim for Overstay

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this:

"I do remember though that I had to take a phone call that lasted for some time."

And remove all the stuff under 'Exaggerated claim' right through to before the statement of truth. That is old.

Replace that with the usual stuff seen in other recent WS, which is more up to date and covers the point that a late discontinuance means the D can claim costs.

You could attach a signed & dated costs assessment sheet.

Recent WS:

Kpmp54 is recent & has Chan & Akande and also Excel v Wilkinson

mtrolley123 has Mazur and is a good WS with sub headings in a DCB case.

maxim024 also has Mazur. 

peacefulwarrior2023

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove this:

"I do remember though that I had to take a phone call that lasted for some time."

And remove all the stuff under 'Exaggerated claim' right through to before the statement of truth. That is old.

Replace that with the usual stuff seen in other recent WS, which is more up to date and covers the point that a late discontinuance means the D can claim costs.

You could attach a signed & dated costs assessment sheet.

Recent WS:

Kpmp54 is recent & has Chan & Akande and also Excel v Wilkinson

mtrolley123 has Mazur and is a good WS with sub headings in a DCB case.

maxim024 also has Mazur. 

Thanks Coupon-mad.

Looking at Kpmp54's recent WS. It contains the entire transcript of the cases mentioned appended at the end of the WS. Is that necessary or would links to the cases suffice?

I was actually thinking of how much time I have spent. Do you think that it would be ok to ask for costs related to time spent on this to study cases, time spent studying other WSs here etc, pretty much like Kpmp54 did?

There is also in the above mentioned WS reference to the Private Parking Code which was however withdrawn in 2022. IS it ok to include it?

Many Thanks again for all your time and efforts

1505grandad

Para 2  -  " Additionally, the Claimant must ensure that any contractual terms are entirely illegible from any reasonable distance, let alone from a moving vehicle. "

Is that the correct word?

peacefulwarrior2023

1505grandad said:

Para 2  -  " Additionally, the Claimant must ensure that any contractual terms are entirely illegible from any reasonable distance, let alone from a moving vehicle. "

Is that the correct word?

Yes I believe so:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/illegible

James_Poisson

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

1505grandad said:

Para 2  -  " Additionally, the Claimant must ensure that any contractual terms are entirely illegible from any reasonable distance, let alone from a moving vehicle. "

Is that the correct word?

Yes I believe so:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/illegible

Sorry, it clearly is not the word you require is legible. 

peacefulwarrior2023

James_Poisson said:

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

1505grandad said:

Para 2  -  " Additionally, the Claimant must ensure that any contractual terms are entirely illegible from any reasonable distance, let alone from a moving vehicle. "

Is that the correct word?

Yes I believe so:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/illegible

Sorry, it clearly is not the word you require is legible. 

Oh sorry. You're both right

Coupon-mad

peacefulwarrior2023 said:

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove this:

"I do remember though that I had to take a phone call that lasted for some time."

And remove all the stuff under 'Exaggerated claim' right through to before the statement of truth. That is old.

Replace that with the usual stuff seen in other recent WS, which is more up to date and covers the point that a late discontinuance means the D can claim costs.

You could attach a signed & dated costs assessment sheet.

Recent WS:

Kpmp54 is recent & has Chan & Akande and also Excel v Wilkinson

mtrolley123 has Mazur and is a good WS with sub headings in a DCB case.

maxim024 also has Mazur. 

Thanks Coupon-mad.

Looking at Kpmp54's recent WS. It contains the entire transcript of the cases mentioned appended at the end of the WS. Is that necessary or would links to the cases suffice?

I was actually thinking of how much time I have spent. Do you think that it would be ok to ask for costs related to time spent on this to study cases, time spent studying other WSs here etc, pretty much like Kpmp54 did?

There is also in the above mentioned WS reference to the Private Parking Code which was however withdrawn in 2022. IS it ok to include it?

Of course. It's being reintroduced next year.

And time spent at £24 per hour can be claimed if the other side are found to have acted 'wholly unreasonably'. Such as the claim form being signed by an unauthorised person in their bulk call centre and then discontinuing last minute, as they always do because the whole MO appears to be to frighten and intimidate people into paying inflated claims.

peacefulwarrior2023

I hope this is better. Many thanks for everyone's input so far:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

MET Parking Services LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am [REDACTED NAME] 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 the evidence bundle, identifying them by page and reference numbers 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 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 legible 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 (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. Two recent persuasive appeal authorities are directly on point:

    1. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (15 August 2023, HHJ Murch, Ref. E7GM9W44) (See exhibit (b) in the Appendix below for a link to this case) the court 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.”

    2. In Car Park Management Service v Akande (10 May 2024, HHJ Evans, Ref. K0DP5J30) (See exhibit (c) in the Appendix below for a link to this case) the court held that typical private parking claim particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16, because they do not set out the basic facts needed to prove the claim.

12. The POC in this case suffer from the same defects. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 or, in the alternative, to give it little weight.

13. 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

       ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

14. I suggest that a penalty of £100 for the parking charge notice ‘Consequences which are out of all proportion to any legitimate interests’ of the claimant, distinguished from the charge levied in the Beavis case. (See exhibit (d) in the Appendix below for a link to this case)

15. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist, or to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms, or unfair/unexpected obligations, or can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests.

16. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] KSC67. Also, ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) (See exhibit (e) in the Appendix below for a link to this case) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that admin costs inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

17. In addition to this, the ‘additional charge’ constitutes a double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) (See exhibit (f) in the Appendix below for a link to this case) in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.

18. My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'. The Department for LevellingUp, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

19. Adding debt recovery costs, damages, or fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

20. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts.

21. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.

22. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.

23. The new Act overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark- Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further.

24. Where this Claimant tries to rely upon those cases, the Defendant avers that significant errors were made. Evidence was either overlooked (including inconspicuous signage in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice, including rules for surveillance cameras and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted contract in Beavis. The learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC, whose Code now clarifies all such matters.

Fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

1. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, similar cases, processing and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I ask for fixed witness costs as detailed in the attached document.

CPR 44.11 - further costs

1. I am attaching with this Witness Statement a schedule of costs, which also covers proportionate but unavoidable further costs. I invite the Court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to its powers in relation to misconduct under CPR 44.11.

   
   Conclusion

2. The Claimant’s conduct amounts to unreasonable and improper behaviour: the Claimant has failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. The Particulars of Claim are vague, the signage relied upon is inadequate, and the alleged breach has not been properly evidenced. They issued a PCN despite there being no clear or prominent signage visible on the approach to the car park, and they have sought to recover an inflated sum by adding unrecoverable costs amounting to double recovery. This claim could and should have been avoided, and the pursuit of such a defective and exaggerated claim is vexatious. 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.

3. 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:

Appendix – Exhibits

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

2. CEL vs Chan: https://www.scribd.com/document/676990676/Civil-Enforcement-Limited-v-Ming-Tak-Chan-CC-Luton

3. https://www.scribd.com/document/889427901/Cpm-v-Akande

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

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

6. https://www.scribd.com/document/889427762/G4QZ465V-Excel-v-Wilkinson-2

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

The Schedule of costs that I'm thinking to attach:

(As you can tell I copied and pasted from Kpmp54's WS schedule of costs, hence I'm not sure the ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14 mentioned above are actually valid or should be edited. Similarly, below I say CPR.14 but I guess it should be CPR 27.14?)

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

The Defendant seeks their fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14, namely:
• Loss of earnings for attending the hearing: £95
• Travel costs at HMRC approved rate (45p per mile) / public transport costs. (TBC)
• Parking fee (TBC)

Total costs under CPR.14 £95 + travel / parking costs (TBC)
I invite the Court to award the above fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14 and, in the alternative, to
exercise its discretion under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and/or CPR 44.11 due to the Claimant’s unreasonable
conduct.
Research, preparation and drafting documents (10 hours at lost earnings rate of £24 per hour):
£240.00

Total costs under CPR 27 and/ or CPR 44 - £240

TOTAL COSTS BEING CLAIMED: £335 + travel / parking costs (TBC)

Date

Signed

1505grandad

Para 11.b.  -  "In Car Park Management Services v Akande (10 May 2024, HHJ Evans, Ref. K0DP5J30) "

Check your exhibit  -  there is no "s" on the end of "Service".

You do not appear to have actioned the following posted by C-m above:-

"And remove all the stuff under 'Exaggerated claim' right through to before the statement of truth. That is old.

Replace that with the usual stuff seen in other recent WS, which is more up to date and covers the point that a late discontinuance means the D can claim costs."

peacefulwarrior2023

1505grandad said:

Para 11.b.  -  "In Car Park Management Services v Akande (10 May 2024, HHJ Evans, Ref. K0DP5J30) "

Check your exhibit  -  there is no "s" on the end of "Service".

You do not appear to have actioned the following posted by C-m above:-

"And remove all the stuff under 'Exaggerated claim' right through to before the statement of truth. That is old.

Replace that with the usual stuff seen in other recent WS, which is more up to date and covers the point that a late discontinuance means the D can claim costs."

I have now removed the s from Services in the document of my WS (I also edited the above post to reflect that) -  thanks for that observation.

The stuff under "Exaggerated Claim" in the first WS is very different from the 2nd version of the WS. Are you referring to not including something regarding late discontinuance?