LOST - MET PARKING - N1 CLAIM FORM RECEIVED

F1OrangeField

Hi all,

I know there are many threads on here about this so i'll whip through it.

Relates to the notorious Stansted  - BP/McDonalds/Starbucks car park(s)


My wife was driving and received a NTK with pictures from their ANPR a few days later advising that she had overstayed.

She panicked at this and wrote back to MET that she did not think she stayed longer in the BP car park. I have asked her how do you know you didn't stay longer than the alloted time to which she says I don't, but I can't believe I would have (doesn't give me confidence in defending) 

She has already admitted being the driver and the keeper, however at this point she informed me and I looked into what could be done. 

Found these threads and saw the easiest thing to do seeing as it was MET parking was ignore every letter and there's a good chance they'll go away.

Several letters later and finally the N1 Claim Form has arrived

Attached below.



 
For info I have already started the  AOS - 09/12/2023

Couple questions

1) Is this beatable even though there is a seemingly unprovable chance my wife didn't stay longer than permitted? 

2) I believe I am allowed to defend as a 'Litigation Friend' by filling out an N235 form, please confirm? (Wife suffers from Mental Health and does not think she would cope in court, even a small side room.) 

3) I threw away the initial NTK form which had the ANPR shots of the car entering and leaving but it's so dark I have no idea where they are taken from, is it possible to get them sent back over via a SAR for part of my evidence? 

Thanks in advance!

Umkomaas

1. Most private parking charge claims are beatable with a good defence. There is a template provided on the forum (one of the 5 Announcements stuck to the top of the forum thread index). This might not even reach a court hearing given the woeful lack of detail in the Particulars of Claim (POC) and by inclusion of the Chan judgment in the defence (there's a link to it in the defence template).

2. I think there needs to be serious mental health issues (possibly those preventing the driving of a vehicle). Instead, check out Lay Representative and McKenzie Friend.  In any case, your wife must attend any court hearing and probably be expected to answer questions from the judge and/or any legal advocate representing the claimant. You could, as a LR, be able to present the defence. But, we're a long way from that stage, and there's every likelihood of a strike out by the court (Chan) or a discontinuation by the claimant.  You must keep going through all the required processes, with everything in your wife's name, you can do all the drafting, but cannot do it 'on behalf of'.  There's a worrying too many 'I' and 'my' in your post.  Please confirm that the AOS has been done in your wife's name.

3.  Where there are inadequate POC, we don't recommend sending a SAR as that will undoubtedly fill in the gaps in the POC. It's against the POC you'll be defending, not what any MET NtK might say.

Forum regular @KeithP will be along shortly to provide you with some key dates and early steps to take to get things underway.

F1OrangeField

Umkomaas said:

1. Most private parking charge claims are beatable with a good defence. There is a template provided on the forum (one of the 5 Announcements stuck to the top of the forum thread index). This might not even reach a court hearing given the woeful lack of detail in the Particulars of Claim (POC) and by inclusion of the Chan judgment in the defence (there's a link to it in the defence template).

2. I think there needs to be serious mental health issues (possibly those preventing the driving of a vehicle). Instead, check out Lay Representative and McKenzie Friend.  In any case, your wife must attend any court hearing and probably be expected to answer questions from the judge and/or any legal advocate representing the claimant. You could, as a LR, be able to present the defence. But, we're a long way from that stage, and there's every likelihood of a strike out by the court (Chan) or a discontinuation by the claimant.  You must keep going through all the required processes, with everything in your wife's name, you can do all the drafting, but cannot do it 'on behalf of'.  There's a worrying too many 'I' and 'my' in your post.  Please confirm that the AOS has been done in your wife's name.

3.  Where there are inadequate POC, we don't recommend sending a SAR as that will undoubtedly fill in the gaps in the POC. It's against the POC you'll be defending, not what any MET NtK might say.

Forum regular @KeithP will be along shortly to provide you with some key dates and early steps to take to get things underway.

Thanks Umkomaas,

Understood and confirm the AOS is done in wife's name. 

KeithP

F1OrangeField said:

For info I have already started the  AOS - 09/12/2023.

Does that mean an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, or that you are heading towards filing an Acknowledgment of Service?

For the moment I am going to assume that an Acknowledgment of Service was filed on 9th December. Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 9th December, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's almost 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 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'.

F1OrangeField

KeithP said:

F1OrangeField said:

For info I have already started the  AOS - 09/12/2023.

Does that mean an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, or that you are heading towards filing an Acknowledgment of Service?

For the moment I am going to assume that an Acknowledgment of Service was filed on 9th December. Please confirm.

Confirm filed on the 9th

Coupon-mad

The POC do not plead overstay.  We know the PCN did - but these POC don't.  That's important.

So you'll see from the third paragraph of the Template Defence that your wife uses the hharry version of defence (plus the rest of the template of course that we don't need to repeat here...please spare us!).

This is easy to defend.  99% win here.

NO PAYING IT TO MAKE IT GO AWAY.

We make these go away for nothing!

No worries and no CCJ risk.

Think of this as the ultimate dispute resolution where PPCs go to lose.  Easy for you because 95% of the defence is already written for the Defendant. 

F1OrangeField

Hi all, Merry christmas,

Please see below, am I missing anything/wording needs changing?

Defense

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.

Chan pictures

The facts known to the Defendant:

4.     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 and driver.

5.     The defendant was making use of the car park whilst waiting to collect from Stansted Airport. The defendant bought a meal in McDonalds and then left to go to BP to buy a drink, upon return to the vehicle, the defendant needed to use the bathroom and went back into BP. The defendant then left the premises. 

rest of defense template.

Coupon-mad

I'd add to 5:

Any breach of terms is denied and it is impossible to respond to allegations not made out (at all) in the POC.  In a parking case this could relate to any number of alleged breaches.  This woeful POC is as bad if not worse than seen in the Chan appeal case above.

F1OrangeField

Will do, thanks. With that added, am I ok to send off to the CCBC?

F1OrangeField

Hi all, just checking in for advice on the above message, as I need to submit before the 8th as per Keith P. 

Le_Kirk

You won't get a better endorsement than @Coupon-mad, who wrote the template defence.