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

Umkomaas

The DVLA doesn't know who the owner is. Check what it says on your V5C (logbook).

raislander

KeithP said:

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'.

Hi KeithP, sorry for the late question, but I just realised it and hopefully still there is no impact. If I filled the AOS on the 21st instead of 5 days after the claim issue date (so the 19th nov), still the last day to filed the defence continues to be the 17th of December, or the days to reply are shortened? 

I have the defence ready, maybe just need to review a couple of things, but should be sending it tomorrow. I understand that is still within the correct time right?

Umkomaas

If you filed your AOS after 5 days (but within 19) of the issue date, @KeithP's dates remain the same. Are you wanting a critique of your Defence before submission?

KeithP

raislander said:

KeithP said:

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'.

Hi KeithP, sorry for the late question, but I just realised it and hopefully still there is no impact. If I filled the AOS on the 21st instead of 5 days after the claim issue date (so the 19th nov), still the last day to filed the defence continues to be the 17th of December, or the days to reply are shortened? 

I have the defence ready, maybe just need to review a couple of things, but should be sending it tomorrow. I understand that is still within the correct time right?

That changes nothing.

I did write earlier (and you've just quoted it)...
"you have until Tuesday 3rd December to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it".

So filing an Acknowledgment of Service sometime between the date when I wrote that and 3rd December is fine.

I'm not going to answer your last question because you only have to re-read my post that you have quoted.   

Coupon-mad

Just make sure you use the whole Template Defence but we don't want to be shown it ... please!

Then follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't need to ask us (please don't...) about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.

We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.

See you again in several months' time

raislander

Hi, I'm sending today/this weekend the defence, but before pushing it finally out can you confirm this is correct to include in the defence template - the part that I've tailored to my particular defence. I've included clause 5, because I saw another defence recent one for Stansted infamous carpark McDonalds/Starbucks. Let me know if this is ok.

Clause 6 in my defence is exactly as the template from template clause 4 onwards. 

Thank you!

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 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.

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.

KeithP

This seems a bit strange in the last sentence of your para 2...
   "...the Defendant was the registered keeper, but was not definitely the driver".

'not definitely'?? To me, that reads as the RK may have been the driver, but it's not definite.

You told us earlier the keeper was definitely not the driver.
Why not use that phrase here?
So those words become...
   "...the Defendant was the registered keeper, but was definitely not the driver".

raislander

KeithP said:

This seems a bit strange in the last sentence of your para 2...
   "...the Defendant was the registered keeper, but was not definitely the driver".

'not definitely'?? To me, that reads as the RK may have been the driver, but it's not definite.

You told us earlier the keeper was definitely not the driver.
Why not use that phrase here?
So those words become...
   "...the Defendant was the registered keeper, but was definitely not the driver".

Apologies English not my first language, but you are completely right it reads differently, and I meant to say "definitely not". I will change that. 

For the clauses related to relevant land, those should stay in this case correct?

Thank you! 

Coupon-mad

Correct.  

goldeng000se

Hi guys, I was wondering if I could your pick your brains because I’m in a bit of sticky situation. I have a PCN from DCB/ euro car parks for a parking issue 4 years ago. 

Unfortunately I found the money saving forum well after I submitted my defence so it is not written anywhere near what it should be and I assume I can’t edit it after submission… I had the  ‘mediation’ phone call with them last week and they want £200 minimum, they are claiming for £320 for a parking fee that I paid of £1.50…. so I would rather take them to court and get a fair judgement. When I get the letter for the court date I assume I will have to submit evidence, I will submit the bank letter which showed I paid on the day, is there anything else I can do to try and bulk up my evidence/ defence? I would really appreciate any help if there’s anything else I can do! 

This is the defence I have submitted:

‘On the 16/1/2020, I was a medical student doing a placement at a

GP surgery in Walsall. For the first and only time I entered the

Walsall Waterfront Car Park for my lunch break. As I was

unfamiliar with the car park, I saw the signs for car park payment

as I drove out of the car park, I immediately returned to the car

park and paid for the time period I had been there for. I have a

bank statement that can confirm the payment of £1.50 to Euro Car

Parks Ltd Walsall from that time period.

Furthermore, when this ticket was sent to my home address, I

called the company several times to explain this issue and tried

to rectify it. On the phone, the debt collectors said they were

unable to resolve the issue for me - even when I explained I had a

physical copy of the ticket for that day.

During the several years that have passed, I believe that I have

been continuously and wrongfully followed up for a debt that I do

not owe.’ 

I know after doing my research I should have submitted a much more robust defence but if any one has any advice, help would be appreciated