Claim Form/CST Law/MET Parking BP South Mimms

12watch

Hi, 

I received a PCN for an overstay at South Mimms BP service station in September 2021. 

My POPLA appeal was rejected & have ignored all of the subsequent correspondence.

The claim for dated the 7th December was delivered on Monday the 18th!

I will file an acknowledgement of service & would appreciate any assistance in preparing my defence.

Thank you in advance.

Here is a copy of the NTK & Claim Form:

KeithP

I wonder why some claimants, perhaps it's just CST Law, use different date formats in their Particulars of Claim?
I've noticed this before.
In this case we see in one place...

followed later by...

 Are they trying to confuse people or are they simply incompetent?

Anyway...

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, you have until Thursday 28th 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 9th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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'.

12watch

KeithP said:

I wonder why some claimants, perhaps it's just CST Law, use different date formats in their Particulars of Claim?
I've noticed this before.
In this case we see in one place...

followed later by...

 Are they trying to confuse people or are they simply incompetent?

Thanks Keith,

…..both I would imagine!

Le_Kirk

The claim form, which is what you are defending against, makes no mention of WHY or HOW you breached the T&Cs of the car park, therefore you do not mention in your defence an overstay.  Simply use the @hharry100 defence.

12watch

I've received the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings along with a General Directions Order that states that the copy of the Defence is not on the court file. I have logged back in to MCOL where it is listed as being received in the Claim Status, the PDF of my Defence is also viewable. Do I need to contact the court?

Coupon-mad

YOU MUST comply with Court Orders. Attach the PDF to an email and send it to the local court.

Personally, I would also post a copy (second class if post taking a week is OK per the deadline given?) with a covering note referring to the claim number and the date of this Order.

You can't risk them losing it again!

Show us a redacted copy of some of the defence as we never saw it and the claim was from 2023 so things have changed since then.

Did you admit to driving, or not?

To help you with the right focus for your witness statement, we'll need to know what was said in your facts section which in Jan 2024 probably had the facts at para 17 or something?

Coupon-mad

And...

And please please please do this on or before 5th September (end of next week): the government's Public Consultation.

Their proposals are wrong and in some parts,  anti-consumer. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and detailed, we get that.

But no previous knowledge is needed: you as a harassed and angry Defendant who never wanted court and presumably received umpteen £170 threatograms, can call out a scam industry with little preparation needed and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please!

12watch

Coupon-mad said:

YOU MUST comply with Court Orders. Attach the PDF to an email and send it to the local court.

Personally, I would also post a copy (second class if post taking a week is OK per the deadline given?) with a covering note referring to the claim number and the date of this Order.

You can't risk them losing it again!

Show us a redacted copy of some of the defence as we never saw it and the claim was from 2023 so things have changed since then.

Did you admit to driving, or not?

To help you with the right focus for your witness statement, we'll need to know what was said in your facts section which in Jan 2024 probably had the facts at para 17 or something?

Thank you. Yes, unfortunately I did admit to driving when appealing to the CEO of BP.

Here's a copy/paste of my 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 surprise 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 visited the BP service station as a consumer on the day of the alleged event to

avail themselves of the various services on offer. When entering the forecourt through the entrance

point the Defendant did not see any signs at the entrance.

6. The car park operator must do enough to give notice of the contractual terms to the driver in

advance of the contract being formed. Following receipt of the PCN the Defendant returned to the

site and found that there are no signs at the entrance to the forecourt, contravening the British

Parking Association Code of Practice 19.2 & 19.3 - Entrance signs. The Defendant also found that

many of the Claimant’s other poorly positioned parking signs were obscured by various obstacles,

high sided HGVs parked around the forecourt also made it impossible the readily view the same.

BPA Handbook 2017 and BPA Approved Operators Legislation Guide 2001:

“A commercial practice can be a misleading action (and therefore unfair) if a trader fails to comply

with a “commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with

and the trader indicates in a commercial practice that they are bound by that code of conduct, and

the commitment is firm and capable of being verified, it is not aspirational, and it causes or is likely

to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decisions they would not have taken

otherwise, taking account of its factual context and if all its features and circumstances”.This means

that for example parking operators who sign up to the British Parking Association’s AOS Code of

Practice and then fail to comply with the terms of the code, maybe at risk of breaching this part of

the 2008 regulations.

A commercial practice will be a misleading omission, and therefore unfair, if it omits material

information or provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible,

ambiguous or untimely and as a result causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a

transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise. The concept of ‘material information’ is

defined and can include the identity of the trader such as his trading name and his geographic

address, the price including any taxes or the manner in which the price is calculated.This definition

could apply to an operator’s signage in a car park.”

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.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

9. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is

denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

10. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This

Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the

will of Parliament is to ban it.

11. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or

archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or

a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

12. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a

statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/

publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every

day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals

services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from

motorists."

13. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft

Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/

file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

14. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true

minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

15. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal

team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims

track rules.

16. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times

less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a

million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent. MoJ statistics

reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs

totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of

Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board

comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

17. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is

drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores

Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for

prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in

paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters

and 'would appear to be penal'.

......the remainder of my defence was copy & pasted from the hharry100 defence

Coupon-mad

That's good. You had CEL v Chan in there. We now also have CPMS v Akande too. Both are correct to use as authorities against this POC. The transcripts are linked in the WS section of the NEWBIES thread.

And while you await your Hearing Order, on or before 5th September (end of next week) please please do the government's Public Consultation.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please!

12watch

Thank you so much, I'll make that amendment. 

Long gone are the days of Tesco Clubcard bonus points but it'll be 20 years of you helping others & I'm truly appreciative of that. 

Coupon-mad

12watch said:

Thank you so much, I'll make that amendment. 

Long gone are the days of Tesco Clubcard bonus points but it'll be 20 years of you helping others & I'm truly appreciative of that. 

LOL, those were the days to shop at Tesco. Hence my username! I was a bit of an expert coupon-swapper, Clubcard points gal (flew the whole family on our first holiday abroad thanks to them) and a very grateful user of their 'overcharge policy' when my kids were little. 20 years ago!