Help needed with Parking fine Defence.

lolly2003_80

Hi all, I am hoping someone can litrally hand hold me through the process. I have read the newbies thread and have read a couple of defences and seen the template. I struggle processing information to be able to put into words what I require and so this is where i become stuck.

I have received not one but two claim forms from County Court for parking fines from DCB Legal on behalf of Met Parking Services for overstaying at BP Garage at an airport.

On both occaisions ( A week apart) It was not myself that was driving but my Fiancee. I had previosuly informed them on the phone when they called me. I have not responded to the fine as I assumed they would resend it in my partners name. (Please note we had taken a break at the time and were not speaking so it kidn of slipped my mind to do anything about it)

In her defence she had done this lots of times and sat and had a coffee after getting some shopping and never noticed any signs nor had any parking tickets as the petrol station was quite new so she thinks they were put up but not made clear? but again it was quite a few years ago so cant quite remember.

Both Claim forms are dated 21st November 2023
Acknowledgment submitted on 03rd December 2023

So my questions are:

Will I able to submit a defenceand state this is not me driving? Do I need to find proof that I was not driving? 

What date do I need to submit my defence?
Should this be by post or by email?
What template should i use to respond?
What are the odds at getting this out of my name?

Any other help or direction is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

JerryJ64

There's a possibility that a chunk of land to the west of the A538 that falls within the Manchester Airport operational boundary which would mean that it is covered by airport bylaws and so is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA. However, it does sound as though you may have dobbed your partner in the mire by identifying her as the driver. 

If the claims are in your name, then you must defend. It is too late to transfer liability to your partner.

With a claim date of 21st November 2023 and having submitted your AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th December to file your defence.

As these are two separate claims for the same alleged breach of contract, you will be within your rights to claim cause of action estoppel. Have another thorough read of the newbies/FAQ thread.

lolly2003_80

Thank you for your response. 

Would I use the defence I was not the driver or would i need to defend on behalf of my fiancee about the poor signage etc..?

Do you know if there is anyone/company that can help me write a defence/give me advice?

I'm really sturggling with processing all the information on the threads.

KeithP

JerryJ64 said:

With a claim date of 21st November 2023 and having submitted your AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th December to file your defence.

Danny, County Courts are closed on 27th December. 

@lolly2003_80, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December to file your defence

Coupon-mad

lolly2003_80 said:

Thank you for your response. 

Would I use the defence I was not the driver or would i need to defend on behalf of my fiancee about the poor signage etc..?

Do you know if there is anyone/company that can help me write a defence/give me advice?

I'm really sturggling with processing all the information on the threads.

You don't need a company to write you a defence when you are in a forum where I've already written the defence for you.

Why not just read the other (dozen or so) MET recent Starbucks Stansted cases on this forum for inspiration?

Easy to find them all with forum keyword searches, same as I advised this person:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6492756/please-help-advice-for-met-parking-stansted-court-claim

Just read half a dozen just like yours!  It is that easy.  Copy & paste.

You have time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute or after Xmas.  Best do it this weekend, as it takes no more than an hour. Then that part is done and you've saved yourself £600.

 

To create a Defence, to be filed a by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread

...immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service (if you haven't done that yet) 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'.

lolly2003_80

Thank you all for your help. I have written my defence, I appreciate you are all really busy. If possible could someone take a read over this? Ideally I would like to get it sent off today 22.12.23.

I hope I have done everything right? Thank you again for you help.

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 and denies being the driver of the vehicle.

3. The recollection from the Defendant, is that the car was at all material times properly parked and authorised and were genuine patrons of BP Airport City SF Connect. The site is notorious for spurious PCNs for 'overstaying’. The Defendant had stopped to do some shopping at the BP/M&S and get a hot drink whilst on the way to care for their horses. The defendant sat and finished off the drink in the car before setting off to continue their journey. Due to the significant amount of time passed since the claim date the defendant cannot recall seeing any signage at that time. The Claimant can recall that it was dark and poorly lit.

 

4. In light of the legal principles detailed below, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court exercises its authority under CPR 3.4 2(b) to strike out both claims 1 and 2 (K5KF6Y3N and K0KF8Y7P) on the grounds of cause of action estoppel given that both exaggerated claims involve the exact same facts, details and residential location, and alleged contractual terms/breach and all cases involved the same parties.

 

5. Outwith the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

 

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed.

 

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan held:

35.1. "The finding I make is consistent with the underlying purpose of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, that it was necessary to bring in keeper liability pursuant to that legislation, because liability could not be established.  If this were not the case car parking companies could simply have obtained the details of the registered keeper, launched proceedings and waited to see whether or not there was a positive defence put forward, and in the absence of a positive defence they would have succeeded. If the court took such an approach, it would have been imposing a duty on the registered keeper, to identify the driver or at least set out a positive case in order to avoid responsibility himself. In my judgment that was not the position before ... [the POFA] ... was in force; 

35.2.  my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and 

35.3.  it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..."

6.  Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.  In the extant case, this Claimant has launched 'roboclaim' cut & paste proceedings saying vaguely that the Defendant was 'keeper and/or driver' and waited to see if the registered keeper has the nous to research the POFA and to meaningfully defend, or if they could gain a default CCJ (as happens in 90% of small claims).  It is a lucrative gamble with the odds of wrongful success heavily weighted in parking operators' favour, but this is plainly an abuse of the court process.  This baseless claim demonstrates precisely the behaviour that HHJ Gargan identified in 35.1. This claim has no basis in law and neither the court nor the Defendant should be troubled with a hearing.

 

 

.

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

The rest is as per the template.

Coupon-mad

 "denies being the driver of the vehicle."

Really? Your account suggests otherwise but I see you told us you were only a passenger and the Claimant knows this already.  Say that!

"The Claimant can recall that it was dark and poorly lit."

You are the Defendant not the Claimant.

lolly2003_80

Thank you, I have been back through the voice recording (Glad I did this)  from my phone calls and I have never admitted who the driver was, I thought I did. 

Oops have changed it to defendant now. 

lolly2003_80

Also, as I am denying I am the driver should i still continue with #3 which is from my fiancee I was not with her at the time.

Coupon-mad

No. As I said, your account is misleading and I told you what to say instead.

lolly2003_80

Thanks Coupon Mad.

I did amend it and as you said.

I have now recieved an email from Charlotte Carr @ DCB legal saying they intend to proceed and without prejudice they may be prepared to settle this case.

Do I need to respond to this or ignore it?