Another Claim Form - MET Parking / DCB Legal / Stansted southgate park

Parkingsucks

Hi all,

After receiving a claim form for the first time earlier this month I received another yesterday. 

The claim relates to the southgate park mcdonalds / starbucks scam. 

These are the POC's 



I've completed the AOS and am now drafting a defence. I've cobbled it together from a few other user's defence and would appreciate some pointers!

I've used the Newbie template, with "facts known to defendant" as shown below:

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but liability is denied. 

3.    The vehicle was insured for use by other family members, and also anyone else with their own correct insurance. The Defendant has no recollection of who was driving on that unremarkable day more than 3 years ago

4.   As a significant amount of time has passed since the alleged incident, it is difficult to know the exact circumstances surrounding the visit to claimant’s site.

6.    The Particulars of Claim ('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”. 

7.    The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

8.    The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

9.    The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.

10. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: “If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.’” 

 

11. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

Hoping for some feedback, thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 4 and 10.

Replace 4 with:

 4.  Paragraph 4 of the Claimant's POC adds as an afterthought, a scattergun and legally impossible alternative basis of claim, stating: "the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4."  The Claimant knows or should know that this site is under Statutory Control and such locations are expressly excluded from those 'keeper liability' provisions.  The Claimant also indisputably knows that the Notice to Keeper was deliberately 'non-PoFA' in wording (due to the status of the land) and did not warn the keeper about any liability.  Therefore, the Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative.  Further, the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claim and attempts to claim interest on the whole unquantified £170, from the date of the alleged event.. So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, which cannot have been over £100.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Parkingsucks

Issued 24/11/23, acknowledged 30/11/23.

Coupon-mad

I'm sure KeithP will be along again shortly.

  

KeithP

Parkingsucks said:

Issued 24/11/23, acknowledged 30/11/23.

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file your 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Joeltooley

Hi, this is Parkingsucks, my account seems to have vanished. I did submit a defence in good time and then heard nothing for the last 6 months.

 I've now received a court date! 

I know that I have to submit a witness statement and evidence, does anyone have any advice related to this specific case of stansted mcdonalds/Starbucks?

Thanks

patient_dream

As you know, MET parking at Stansted is a scam.
DCBL know it's a scan, the courts know it is a scam

DCBL are mug hunting  and again they are timewasters of the court system

No doubt this will end up in the DCBL discontinue thread which will happen nearer the court date
Just follow the advice on here and have a read of the DCBL discontinuation thread the famous chicken out thread 

You now play the game with the DCBL timewasters 

DCBL taking a mega scam to court ? LOSERS

LDast

What evidence have MET provided to prove their allegation?

Joeltooley

LDast said:

What evidence have MET provided to prove their allegation?

I am yet to see any evidence - I assume I will receive this in the coming days as the court date is 25 days time, evidence must be submitted to me in 11 days.

LDast

Joeltooley said:

LDast said:

What evidence have MET provided to prove their allegation?

I am yet to see any evidence - I assume I will receive this in the coming days as the court date is 25 days time, evidence must be submitted to me in 11 days.

You won't see any evidence.