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

SmartTraveler

Received this today. At what stage will I know whether the case has been struck out/PPC discontinued, or if I must attend the hearing? Does this letter confirm that the hearing is proceeding?

Coupon-mad

You'll learn about the (likely) discontinuance at the same stage everyone else in your shoes has stated it happens.  Read the DCB Legal discontinuances thread for the timeline.

However there is a MET (BP Gatwick) case today where the hearing is going ahead as MET's director has provided a WS. Go and find that one & bookmark it. The difference is that one is CST Law not DCB.  You are lucky. The latter will discontinue, we say!

  

SmartTraveler

Hi, I received the Notice of Hearing last week. The important dates I can see are:

• 3rd March 2025: deadline for sending all relevant documents (incl. WS) to other party and court.
  
• 28th March 2025: for claimant to pay the trial fee (£27)
• 28th April 2025: hearing date at the County Court

I just received a call from DCB regarding the case, and I told them that I would not settle and would proceed to the hearing. The call just took a couple of minutes.

Since the deadline for sending WS is earlier that the deadline for the claimant to pay the trial fee, does it make sense for me to start preparing the documents in case they decide not to strike this out? Any thoughts/advice much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Yep, prepare your WS by the end of Feb but don't send it too soon.  Ideally DCB Legal will discontinue when they see it.

SmartTraveler

I've drafted my WS below please review and let me know if I missed anything. I can provide the exhibit files if need be.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
IN THE COUNTY COURT at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch

Claim No.:  xxxx

 Between

 

MET PARKING SERVICES LTD

(Claimant)

- and –

xxxx

(Defendant)

 _________________

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT

Date: 25 February 2025

1.     I am xxxx (residing at xxxx) and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting witness statement for the hearing scheduled on 28th April 2025 at 10:00 AM at the County Court at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, in relation to claim number xxxx.

2.     I was the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration xxxx at the time of the alleged event.

3.     I am aware that the Claimant is MET Parking Services Ltd, and that the claim is in respect of an alleged unpaid Parking Charge Notice.

FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

4.     The alleged event took place on December 12, 2022, at Stansted Airport during what has been documented as the "heaviest snowfall in a short period of time" Essex had seen for 12 years, with 9cm falling in around three hours. This created exceptional circumstances that significantly affected visibility of signage and ground markings. [EXHIBIT A - ITV News article dated December 12, 2022]

5.     As evidenced by EXHIBIT A, this unprecedented snowfall caused significant disruption to the airport and surrounding areas, with over 100 flights cancelled, the runway closed for approximately six and a half hours, and major roads including the M25 and M11 closed overnight and into the rush hour. These conditions created a chaotic environment that substantially impacted parking arrangements and signage visibility.

6.     On the day in question, I was a legitimate customer of McDonald's at Stansted Airport, as evidenced by my bank statement showing a purchase of £9.78 at "MCDONALDS STANSTED GBR" on December 12, 2022. [EXHIBIT B - Monzo Bank statement dated December 12, 2022]

7.     The Claimant alleges that the car park was designated for Starbucks customers only, not for McDonald's customers, despite both establishments being located in the same premises with a single entry/exit point. This distinction was not clearly communicated through signage, especially under the adverse weather conditions, and it is unreasonable to expect customers to understand such subtle distinctions between adjacent businesses sharing what appears to be common facilities.

8.     I would like to draw the Court's attention to photographic evidence of the site layout. [EXHIBIT C - Google Street View image showing the single entrance to both McDonald's and Starbucks, and EXHIBIT D - Aerial view showing the relative positions of McDonald's and Starbucks with a single shared entrance from Southgate Road]. These exhibits clearly demonstrate that:

a.     There is only one entrance/exit point to the entire site

b.     Both McDonald's and Starbucks share this common entrance

c.     There is no clear delineation or physical separation between the McDonald's and Starbucks parking areas

d.     A reasonable person would perceive this as a single retail park with shared parking facilities

9.     I would like to draw the Court's attention to the fact that this specific site and the practices of MET Parking Services at Stansted Airport were the subject of a Channel 4 investigation by comedian Joe Lycett in 2019, which exposed this exact practice as a notorious scam. [EXHIBIT E - Reference to Joe Lycett's Channel 4 investigation into MET Parking Services at Stansted Airport, 2019: https://youtu.be/5i_RcNM4SM0?si=GG9yt90qRqiIk7Mv]

10.  This site has been extensively covered in national media as "Britain's most ridiculous car park" and "Essex's most ridiculous car park" due to the Claimant's predatory practices. Multiple reputable news sources have reported on this exact issue at this exact location, including:

a.     The Mirror: "Couple slapped with 'Britain's most ridiculous' parking fine" [EXHIBIT F - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-slapped-britains-most-ridiculous-13566237]

b.     The Daily Mail: "Couple hit with £60 fine despite parking in FREE car park near Stansted Airport" [EXHIBIT G - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6374475/Couple-hit-60-fine-despite-parking-FREE-car-park-near-Stansted-Airport.html]

c.     Essex Live: "Essex's most ridiculous car park" [EXHIBIT H - https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/essexs-most-ridiculous-car-park-3412330]

d.     The Guardian: "Parking fine: Starbucks, McDonalds, Stansted Southgate Park" [EXHIBIT I - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park]

11.  This extensive media coverage demonstrates that the Claimant has been persistently engaging in these questionable practices for years, targeting motorists who are unaware of the artificial and poorly marked boundaries between businesses at the same premises. The fact that this practice has continued for years despite national media exposure speaks to a deliberate business model rather than legitimate parking enforcement.

12.  The site boundary was not clear. No map or clear markings were provided to define where the boundary between the Starbucks and McDonald's parking areas began or ended. This lack of clarity is particularly significant as both establishments share the same address (A120 Southgate Rd, Stansted CM24 1PY), and there is only one entrance to the site, as clearly shown in EXHIBITS C and D. A reasonable person would understand "leaving the site" to mean leaving the entire Southgate Park premises, not merely walking from one business to another within the same retail area.

13.  Given the significant time that has elapsed and the challenging weather conditions described in paragraphs 4-5, my recollection of exact details is understandably hazy. However, to the best of my knowledge, the car was at all material times properly parked and I was a legitimate patron of a business at the premises.

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE

14.  The site in question is 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, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land.

15.  Subsequent research 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). This inadequacy would have been further exacerbated by the heavy snowfall conditions that day, likely obscuring signage and ground markings as evidenced in EXHIBIT A.

16.  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.

17.  I deny that either (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.

LEGAL GROUNDS FOR DEFENCE

18.  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.

19.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022 that addresses many of the industry practices employed by companies like the Claimant.

20.  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 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 were found to be penal.

21.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices', which includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications.

22.  I aver that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith.

23.  Unlike in Beavis, small signs with hidden terms and minuscule small print were used that are incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of 'adequate notice' include:

                        i.         Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's 'red hand rule')

                       ii.         Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2

                      iii.         Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000

 

24.  DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name.

25.  The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes.

26.  There is insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention. The evidence provided by MET Parking Services consists only of still photos. There is no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that individuals can see while on site, in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what might be considered 'off site'. Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site', this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined.

27.  No evidence of Landowner Authority has been provided. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner showing their authorization to operate enforcement in their own name, particularly in relation to the specific boundaries between McDonald's and Starbucks parking areas.

CONCLUSION

The claim is entirely without merit and the Particulars of Claim are inadequate. I believe that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be dismissed.
 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH:

I, xxxx, the Defendant, believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

SmartTraveler

and do I need to send this in post to the Court AND claimant? is it not possible to email these?

Coupon-mad

Email to both (a single email to the local court hearings email, cc-ing the legals in).

Remove 'in 2019' after 'comedian Joe Lycett'.

Remove para 14 because above it, you admit you were driving by sating: "I was a patron."

SmartTraveler

Thank you @Coupon-mad, always super helpful!

SmartTraveler

Today I received the Notice of discontinuance from DCB Legal on behalf of Met Parking Services.
Thanks every one for their suggestions and guidance! 

SmartTraveler

not relevant any more, but for the benefit of others: in case you need to send your WS to Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, here is their email address:
enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk