DCBLegal (Claim Form) - Met Parking Services Ltd (Stansted) - HELP Please, transferred so far away

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th November, you have until Tuesday 3rd December 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 Tuesday 17th December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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'.

raislander

Thank you @KeithP for the info, on my way to the website to register and file the AOS. I'll be back once I have gone through the defence par of the post. 

Thank you guys for the help along this nightmare!

Gr1pr

Please only post the few paragraphs that you have adapted or changed, not the rest of the template defence ( only your homework needs to be checked. ) I believe that its ONLY your paragraphs 2 & 5 that you changed. )

You should have deleted the part about cannot be changed to driver now too

Coupon-mad

Start again and please delete that one. We don't want to see the whole defence, thanks!

You are also using the wrong one.

raislander

Ok so I've started again from scratch as posted. 

This is the beginning of the defence and then I'm coping from clause 4 onwards in the defence template. Let me know if that is how it should be. 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

MET Parking Services Ltd

(Claimant)

- and -

My name

(Defendant)

_________________

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, but is unaware of who the driver was on that particular day, considering the event happened more than 21 months ago, and the car has multiple insured drivers.

3. The Defendant has a hazy recollection of the events on that day, considering they happened more than 21 months ago, but to the best of his knowledge recalls that a family member was being picked up from Stansted Airport, and at the time his family was at the airport, his son who is 5 years old was in need of using the toilet and having lunch.  From what his family can recall at all material times the car was properly parked and authorised and their family members were genuine patrons of McDonalds and/or Starbucks. The Defendant cannot tell from the POC whether the allegation he has to answer is an alleged overstay, or something else.  Any contractual breach is denied. The site is notorious for spurious PCNs for 'parking on the wrong side' and this scam has even featured on national television and national press.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

4. 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.

5. 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, 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

(Insert the 4 pages from the forum from Chan case)

----- From here is copy and paste of the defence template clauses 4 to 30 with the right numbers ---------

Any comments?

Thank you!

KeithP

Why are you mentioning Chan at all?
I don't see that the Particulars of Claim that you have shown us are vague enough to warrant that, but see what others think.

Le_Kirk

Paragraph #3, you need to sort out the section "was been" did you mean "was being" or "had been"? I agree with @KeithP, you cannot use Chan

raislander

Thanks for the inputs. I add "Chan" there because at the very least the wording seems vary vague to me, I'll explain: 

1) they pursue me as the driver - never admitted to be driving the car on that day - on the basis that the contract was breach - my family at the time never entered into any sort of contract with this party or agreed to it - and leaving the premisses without paying for parking - there is no option to make any payment at this parking, it is wellknown this is a scam, where the same premisses are divided in half and if you go from McDonalds to Starbucks or Starbucks to McDonalds you get a PCN from them for a 100£, even published on TV and well discussed as a scam in parliament, there this guys continue to use the same method on an on. I've even written to McDonalds and Starbucks to complaint about this to no reply from them so far. 

2) in case I'm not the driver, they pursue me based on POFA 2012 Article 4, yet in this case I wrote to them in reply to their letter of claim, precisely explaining that they could not use POFA as they have not aligned with the requirements to notify me in time etc, yet their reply by email was that their customer MET Parking didn't have to comply with POFA, yet they pursue me based on it????

That is why I added "Chan" there because this is presented so scuffed and it's a copy paste of other I've seen here on this website. 

Any way glad to hear your comments and what should I add/remove etc. 

Thanks!

raislander

Le_Kirk said:

Paragraph #3, you need to sort out the section "was been" did you mean "was being" or "had been"? I agree with @KeithP, you cannot use Chan

Thank you for the comment, English is not my first language so I had not seen that one. Thanks for helping

Le_Kirk

You can only use CEL v Chan where the (POC) particulars of claim are sparse. Looking at the claim form you have included,  the POC are very specific and that is what you have to defend against. Look at other Stansted/MET defences for inspiration.