Claim form received from Met Parking via CST law

DefenderLad

Hi all

Long time lurker(all will be revealed shortly) but first post. 

To cut a long story short. Parking fine received from Met Parking back in 2011 at a BP station(not the notorious one on here). Tried to fight it in the early days via popla I think. As they’re all in bed with each other it got rejected.

The File was eventually passed over to CST law/Credit style and their other previous cowboy names. They have been giving me trees and trees of paper ever since. 

I recently got a letter before claim but as it wasn’t an official one, one of their make believe ones, I still ignored it, and now by my utterly surprise they have escalated it further! How is that even possible? 

I received my claim form on the 7/12 and replied to the AOS yesterday(11/12). 

I’ve see the template defence on here but just need to check a few things.

1) They haven’t given me actual reason for the fine on the claim form, so I take it this should be cut and dry win?

2) Why do I need to make the defence in to a PDF format? Why can’t I just email out over to the email address listed? I don’t have a scanner or printer any longer so this could be a right pain. 

3) Can they escalate it further without actually giving a proper letter before claim?

4) I’m stuck at what to write to why I was there as I don’t want to drop myself in it with the wrong wording. 

All advice would be greatly received. 

Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

Please write something as your facts and add it as paragraph 5 to the hharry version of defence, same as you see in all the CST / MET claim threads.

We can help when we see your draft first 6 paragraphs (not the whole template here please...you will be using it but don't show us beyond para 6 as that's distracting and unnecessary for us to read).

Of course a signed document has to be a PDF. No scanning or printing is ever needed though.

Please tell us:

- issue date of this Claim?

- date you did the AOS as per the NEWBIES thread?

Umkomaas

Parking fine received from Met Parking back in 2011

Are you sure?

I received my claim form on the 7/12 and replied to the AOS yesterday(11/12)

What is the Date of Issue shown on the claim form?

1) They haven’t given me actual reason for the fine on the claim form, so I take it this should be cut and dry win?

That actually helps you, but while we win the vast majority of court claims, we don't second guess a court and predict 'a cut and dry win'.

Read why the lack of particulars on the claim help you here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

2) Why do I need to make the defence in to a PDF format? Why can’t I just email out over to the email address listed? I don’t have a scanner or printer any longer so this could be a right pain. 

PDF via email is the safest method of forwarding documents to third parties. What format were you intending to use?  Why would you need a scanner or printer?

3) Can they escalate it further without actually giving a proper letter before claim?

They've done it already. The lack of a formal LBC is no showstopper. Get on with defending the claim. 

4) I’m stuck at what to write to why I was there as I don’t want to drop myself in it with the wrong wording. 

The forum Template Defence does everything for you (apart from your introduction in the first couple of paragraphs with a bit of background) and prevents you blowing your toes off.  

KeithP

DefenderLad said:

I received my claim form on the 7/12 and replied to the AOS yesterday(11/12). 

You say you received the Claim Form on 7th December.
Can you now please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

What does "replied to the AOS" mean?
Does it mean that you returned the supplied form by post to the CNBC, or does it perhaps mean you followed the guidance in the NEWBIES thread and completed an Acknowledgment of Service online via the MCOL webpages? Or does it mean something else entirely?

DefenderLad

Apologies all I got my date wrong there. Bloody typing to fast on my iPhone! 

It was 2021 when I got my fine not 2011! Apologies 

I got the Claim letter dated the 7th of December 2023 and I did my acknowledgment of service yesterday(11/12) via the way it is shown how to do it on here. I did not indicate my financial situation etc  

DefenderLad

Here is what I’ve gone with after following the newbie thread. 

DEFENCE

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. 

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’s car from vague memory was there to fill up with petrol at the BP service station at South Mimms motorway services. 

6. 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 would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

KeithP

DefenderLad said:

I got the Claim letter dated the 7th of December 2023 and I did my acknowledgment of service yesterday(11/12) via the way it is shown how to do it on here. I did not indicate my financial situation etc  

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 11th 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'.

Coupon-mad

DefenderLad said:

Here is what I’ve gone with after following the newbie thread. 

DEFENCE

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. 

THERE SHOULD BE FOUR IMAGES HERE NOT ONE ~ THIS IS MEANT TO SHOW THE FULL JUDGMENT

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’s car from vague memory was there to fill up with petrol at the BP service station at South Mimms motorway services.  Any breach of a parking term is denied, not that the woeful POC explain what the driver is alleged to have done wrong and not that any letters included a photo of the 'contract' (the sign) either.  This has involved a series of generic debt demands since 2021 which bore all the hallmarks of a scam. There has been a lack of clarity throughout, very lax adherence to the pre-action protocol and little or no attempt to comply with the CPRs for claim issuance.

6. 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 would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

REST OF TEMPLATE DEFENCE (SUITABLY RENUMBERED) FOLLOWS

I would just add the above (my bold) and make sure you include the whole Chan transcript, not one page.

DefenderLad

Someone please help!

I’ve literally got the above in the post today yet I have followed all the step. Send back my defence, had the N180 from the parking firm
And filed it as issued! I was literally waiting to receive my own copy of the N180 from the court. The steps on here said I can wait until I get sent a copy

why on earth have been sent this????

DE_612183

Did you have a court date that you have missed?

DefenderLad

Absolutely no court date at all! The last thing I received on the case was the N180 form from the parking firm which on the steps says you should file and wait to receive your own from the court