Help with drafting my Defence for Court Claim from MET Parking Services (Southgate Park, Stansted)

SmartTraveler

Hello, I have seen several other threads on similar PCNs from this scammers, so I keep it short:

The PCN had been issued in December 2022. I received the Claim Form (Issue Date 02/09/2024):


Following from the advice here, I Acknowledge it on MCOL on day 6 (08/09/2024):


I am now drafting the Defence following the template in this forum. As advised, I am only modifying paragraphs #2 and #3, adding a couple of paragraphs (borrowed from other successful Defences for similar Claims) and renumbering the rest of the document). I'd really appreciate your advice on my Defence letter, which I'll post below.

SmartTraveler

Here is the initial part of the draft:

 

{Paragraph #1 unchanged from the Template}

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 driver.

3.       The alleged incident occurred on a day (12 Dec 2022) when it had been heavily snowing, making visibility and navigation of the premises exceptionally difficult.

ITV News reported on that day:
“More than 100 flights were cancelled at Stansted Airport and the runway closed for around six and a half hours as crews battled snow, freezing fog and iced-up planes. The Essex base said it was the "heaviest snowfall in a short period of time" it had seen for 12 years - with 9cm falling in around three hours.” (Link to the News page)

Given the significant time that has elapsed and the challenging weather conditions on the day in question, the recollection of exact details is understandably hazy. However, to the best of the Defendant's knowledge, the car was at all material times properly parked and authorised. The Defendant and his family, following the arrival of their flight at Stansted Airport, were stopping to eat at McDonalds located in the exact same premises (A120 Southgate Rd, Stansted CM24 1PY), and were genuine patrons. The Defendant cannot tell from the POC whether the allegation he has to answer is an alleged overstay, or something else. Any contractual breach is denied. The site is notorious for spurious PCNs for 'parking on the wrong side' and this scam has even featured on national television.

4.       This site is also Airport land, which is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. The Operator is put to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would be required to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

5.       Subsequent research by the Defendant shows that the parking signage at the site in question and the boundary delineation between purported areas was wholly inadequate, misleading and confusing, and therefore cannot reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the driver(s). The Claimant is put to strict proof that, at the time of the parking event, the signs and lines were prominent and clearly visible on the site in question. As well as images of the actual signs and delineation of the boundaries, ANPR raw data is required, showing every capture of the vehicle that day as it traversed and returned/left the site, or an area within the site.

{rest kept unchanged from the Template (from paragraph #4 onwards) ...

I took #4 and #5 from another successful Defence, and only added #3 from my own to make it more personalised and differentiate from other cases. If it's a stupid idea, let me know and I'll omit it!

Thank you so much for your 

Gr1pr

3 should wait for the WS bundle stage in several months time, but you can give a brief concise version without all the detail, if it helps, or look at what other cases may have added about that notorious sc#m site 

The chances are that the claimant and lawyer will eventually discontinue, like the over 400 cases already logged in the Discontinuations thread by Umkomaas 

1505grandad

"I took #4 and #5 from another successful Defence,......"

Just checking  -  was the RK admitted as driver in the above Defence you used?

SmartTraveler

1505grandad said:

"I took #4 and #5 from another successful Defence,......"

Just checking  -  was the RK admitted as driver in the above Defence you used?

hmm... good point. No, at least in the draft shared in their thread here, they only admit of being the keeper in paragraph #2: "...it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle."

Should I remove the driver part from my Defence?

Coupon-mad

Not if it's true and you KNOW you were driving.

Doesn't really matter either way because the claim will be discontinued before the hearing in 2025.

SmartTraveler

Gr1pr said:

3 should wait for the WS bundle stage in several months time, but you can give a brief concise version without all the detail, if it helps, or look at what other cases may have added about that notorious sc#m site 

The chances are that the claimant and lawyer will eventually discontinue, like the over 400 cases already logged in the Discontinuations thread by Umkomaas 

Understood. So I would keep this part of #3 only:

3.       Given the significant time that has elapsed and the challenging weather conditions on the day in question, the recollection of exact details is understandably hazy. However, to the best of the Defendant's knowledge, the car was at all material times properly parked and authorised. The Defendant cannot tell from the POC whether the allegation he has to answer is an alleged overstay, or something else. Any contractual breach is denied. The site is notorious for spurious PCNs for 'parking on the wrong side' and this scam has even featured on national television.

Does that suffice for this step?

LDast

Why admit to being the driver whether you were or not? There is no legal requirement, as the keeper, to identify the driver, whether the keeper was or was not the driver. It is not being untruthful by declining to identify the driver and no one, not even a judge can force you to declare whether you were or weren't the driver. The persuasive appeal in VCS v Edward makes that very clear. The burden of proof is solely on the claimant to prove whether the keeper was also the driver and the only way they can do that is if the keeper identifies the driver. There is no need to deny being the driver.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 6th October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's 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'.

SmartTraveler

Just to give an update, I emailed my defence (with signed/dated PDF file) to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk just now, and received an Auto Reply in a few minutes as expected.

SmartTraveler

OK, so timeline of events: I received this letter from the court: