Court received DCBL Legal/MET parking

Jeh99833

Good evening,

I was wondering if I could get some assistance, please.

On Saturday (28.10.23)  I received court documents from DCB in regard to a parking charge from May 2019. Do I need to be concerned?

Back in May 2019, I was renting a property from the Peabody Housing Association in East London. That residence had three parking spots, which were only accessible with parking permits. Fortunately, I had a permit for the side road on which my flat was situated.

On the day in question, when my daughter (7 years old) and I returned from school, there were no parking spaces available on my street or the surrounding streets. I had shopping to take to the second floor, and there was no lift.   

I needed to rush my daughter to the loo and unload my shopping, so I stopped at the front and took her upstairs. When I returned, there was no ticket on my car, but a few days later I got a letter from MET Parking with a £100 overdue fee. How could this happen if I never received a PCN on my windscreen?

How could I have possibly been aware that this violation had occurred? 

I recall signing into MET's website and there were several photos of my car, but none of them exhibited the Penalty Charge Notice affixed to my car.

The increased construction of "Royal Wharf" meant that the limited parking spaces available for the people who lived on the street were filled with cars. To make matters worse, we were close enough to the City Airport to walk there.

I did possess a resident parking permit which allowed me to park on the main road.

3 months later, I bought my own property and sold the car, I completely forgot about the potential fine. To tell the truth, I have been getting letters from Met at my new house for the last few months, typically at an interval of 4-6 months, and I have opted to disregard them.

Is there any way to shake MET off? Did I have the supremacy of the contract?

Sorry! I hope this makes sense as I'm a little worried 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What do you mean by "I received court documents"?

What 'documents' have you received? No, you don't need to list them, just answer the next question.

Have you perhaps received a County Court Claim Form?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Jeh99833

My apologies for the incorrect wording but yes! County court claim form, with issue date of 23rd October 2023

Umkomaas

Sorry! I hope this makes sense as I'm a little worried 

Nothing to be worried about, but you will have to do some research, learning and work to shake MET and DCB Legal off. But, most of that work is already done for you in the shape of a step-by-step guide, a template Defence where all you need to do is add some details of the parking event, and links to a number of exemplar Witness Statements (later in the process) to fashion your own WS around. 

Please look at the following sticky threads (Announcements) near the top of the forum thread list, one click back from this thread:

NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post

Template Defence Announcement 

Stick to the plan and MET and DCB Legal will follow their usual pattern, as usual, and discontinue some way along the line, but it won't be quick, so you have to stay on track, and resilient. Read the following thread to give you the confidence to see this through. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

So that @KeithP can provide you with some key dates and early steps to take to get things underway - have you acknowledged service (AOS) of the court claim, and if so, on what date?  If you haven't yet done so, you need to do that now (and before day 19 following the Date of Issue on your court claim form). 

KeithP

Jeh99833 said:

My apologies for the incorrect wording but yes! County court claim form, with issue date of 23rd October 2023

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd October, you have until Monday 13th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th November 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

UncleThomasCobley

As this is a DCB Legal issued claim, if you follow the advice and use the robust template defence, including the CEL v Chan transcript as a preliminary matter, this will be thrown out at allocation stage.

Jeh99833

I think I managed to file the AOS in time.  today was day 13, so that should be ok?  I now have a further 15 days to file the defence.

@KeithP what do you mean by "Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website."   Will I be sending a physical letter?

@u@UncleThomasCobley noted

KeithP

Jeh99833 said:

I think I managed to file the AOS in time.  today was day 13, so that should be ok?

Did you read my post?

I stated...

KeithP said:
With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd October, you have until Monday 13th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.

Clearly filing an Acknowledgment of Service eight days before the deadline 'should be ok'.

Jeh99833 said:

I now have a further 15 days to file the defence.

What do you mean?
Again I refer you to my earlier post where I stated...

KeithP said:

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th November 2023 to file your Defence.

You have a full three weeks before your Defence filing deadline.

Jeh99833 said:

@KeithP what do you mean by "Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website."   Will I be sending a physical letter?

Once more I have to refer you to my earlier post.
Did you not read this?...

KeithP said:
To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread...

Can you see the words 'by email' in there?

Jeh99833

KeithP said:

Jeh99833 said:

I think I managed to file the AOS in time.  today was day 13, so that should be ok?

Did you read my post?

I stated...

KeithP said:
With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd October, you have until Monday 13th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.

Clearly filing an Acknowledgment of Service eight days before the deadline 'should be ok'.

Jeh99833 said:

I now have a further 15 days to file the defence.

What do you mean?
Again I refer you to my earlier post where I stated...

KeithP said:

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th November 2023 to file your Defence.

You have a full three weeks before your Defence filing deadline.

Jeh99833 said:

@KeithP what do you mean by "Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website."   Will I be sending a physical letter?

Once more I have to refer you to my earlier post.
Did you not read this?...

KeithP said:
To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread...

Can you see the words 'by email' in there?

Oh wow!! This is making me shaky.  Yes! I read your posts, but when I filed the AOS it stated I had 14 days from the Claim issue date. 

Coupon-mad

No it didn't. But please just use the Template Defence with the Chan judgment linked there.

Jeh99833

Hello there, 

Please can you let me know if this is ok or not? I've been having trouble posting to the site. Should I also post the remainder or the defence and accompanying reference to Chan case?

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').  

 
 

  

 
 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out  

 
 

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.  

 
 

  

 
 

3. 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.   

 

 
 

The facts known to the Defendant:  

 
 

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest beliefs.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent, and sparse statement of case. The POC appears to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fails to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, based on 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.  

 
 

5. The Defendant had collected her daughter from primary school and afterwards proceeded to a nearby supermarket store to do some food shopping before finally making her way back to her residence.   

 
 

6. The Defendant had a residential parking permit from Newham Council that allowed her to park in designated controlled parking areas (CPZs). Which she would normally park her vehicle in the controlled parking zone opposite No 3-13 Fort Street, but on this particular day, there were no parking spaces. Having had surgery to correct a protruding abdominal hernia, the Defendant was unwilling to overexert herself.  

 
 

7. The Defendant was tasked with bringing all the shopping to the second-floor flat at xxx Fort Street, where no lift was present. In addition, the Defendant's young daughter was in a situation of great urgency and needed to use a bathroom; thus, she hastily parked her car on the grounds of 3-13 Fort Street.   

 
 

8. The Defendant managed to transfer her shopping to her home, in addition to attending to her daughter. The Defendant returned downstairs to relocate her car to another street much further away, which had parking allocations. Upon returning to her vehicle, the defendant did not see a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to her windscreen.  

 
 

9. The Defendant was only made aware of a fine when she received an overdue charge letter through the post from MET Parking with a £100 overdue fee (copy enclosed) around early May 2019.  

 
 

10. 3 months later (August 2019) the Defendant bought a property and sold the car.  

 
 

11. Recently Met Parking Ltd has been dispatching letters to the Defendant's new house in pursuit of an asserted infringement.  

 
 

12. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Met Parking Ltd cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Met Parking Ltd.  

 
 

13. 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, in addition to evidence there must also 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.