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

raislander

Ok removed Chan and based on a different defence I have found now including the wording of the airport land. 

Could you confirm if this make sense now? In particular if the wording in clause 3 is ok. 

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 been picked up from Stansted Airport, and at the time his family was at the airport area, 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.

4.       This site is also Airport land, which is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. The Operator is put to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would be required to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

 

5.       Subsequent research by the Defendant shows that the parking signage at the site in question and the boundary delineation between purported areas was wholly inadequate, misleading and confusing, and therefore cannot reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the driver(s). The Claimant is put to strict proof that, at the time of the parking event, the signs and lines were prominent and clearly visible on the site in question. As well as images of the actual signs and delineation of the boundaries, ANPR raw data is required, showing every capture of the vehicle that day as it traversed and returned/left the site, or an area within the site.

Coupon-mad

No - too much information that suggests you know it was you driving. Don't play games with court defences.

raislander

I basically explained the situation that my family members told me happened on the day, in fact it was my brother driving the car and he does not live in the UK. 

Should this be better?

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 been picked up from Stansted Airport, and at the time his family was at the airport area. 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.

Gr1pr

raislander said:

I basically explained the situation that my family members told me happened on the day, in fact it was my brother driving the car and he does not live in the UK. 

Should this be better?

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 been picked up from Stansted Airport, and at the time his family was at the airport area. 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.

If this is true then say so at the end of paragraph 2 

I would also add it to the end of on on that day, adding something like 

. The Defendant has a hazy recollection of the events on that day, but was definitely not the driver, considering blah blah 

raislander

ok something like this?

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 was not definitely the driver. 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 been picked up from Stansted Airport, and at the time his family was at the airport area, a family member was driving the car at the time.  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.

Coupon-mad

Oh, why didn't you just give the name and foreign address of the driver a year ago? They couldn't have sued!

Anyway yes that is better.

raislander

Coupon-mad said:

Oh, why didn't you just give the name and foreign address of the driver a year ago? They couldn't have sued!

Anyway yes that is better.

Had no idea to be honest that would be the case and I supposed that they would have chased me as the owner in any case, no? 

Thanks for the confirmation I will then add that to the defence. 

Coupon-mad

No they couldn't have done if only you'd given the driver's name & address.

Umkomaas

raislander said:

Coupon-mad said:

Oh, why didn't you just give the name and foreign address of the driver a year ago? They couldn't have sued!

Anyway yes that is better.

Had no idea to be honest that would be the case and I supposed that they would have chased me as the owner in any case, no? 

Thanks for the confirmation I will then add that to the defence. 

How would they know who the owner is?

raislander

I suppose the same way they discovered I was the register keeper, checking with the DVLA no?