We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
MET Parking Southgate Park Stansted Defense against the Claim
A claim was issued against me on 15/11/2024
My acknowledgment of service was submitted on 26/11/2024 at 21:43:34
My acknowledgment of service was received on 27/11/2024 at 08:05:49
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').
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.
The alleged contravention occurred on 08 July 2023, but the Notice to Keeper was issued on 04 August 2023 and delivered on 11 August 2023. This exceeds the 14-day period required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5), which states that a Notice to Keeper must be served within 14 days of the alleged contravention. Therefore, the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA, and as a result, they cannot hold the vehicle's keeper liable for the alleged charge.
3. The Defendant contends that the MET parking operation at Southgate Car Park has been deliberately designed to confuse drivers. Various signs within the car park indicate that customers are entitled to one hour's free parking, but these signs do not specify any particular restaurant, only stating that customers must stay “on the site”. Other signs designate specific areas for McDonald’s or Starbucks customers only. However, these two restaurants are approximately four meters apart and are situated in what many drivers would perceive as a single car park.
Furthermore, there are no clearly defined boundaries delineating the different zones within the car park. Google Street View reveals that the signage is obscured by large restaurant banners, adding to the confusion and making it difficult for drivers to comply with the parking restrictions.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022:
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."
10. 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:
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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'.
15. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).
16. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight. It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.
17. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ Hickinbottom, DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom have consistently dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to inform his judgment.
18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.
19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').
CRA breaches
20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):
21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.
22. The Defendant avers 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 (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).
ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished
23. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.
24. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps'). This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:
(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and
(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,
both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and
(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''.
25. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these clauses are supported by the BPA & IPC. In the official publication 'Parking Review' the IPC's CEO observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t."
Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR
26. 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. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.
27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report). This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should satisfy Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.
Conclusion
28. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.
29. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
30. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
Comments
-
Firstly, there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.METscamFighter said:I am about to submit my defense on Money Claim Online and the space is limited (122 lines). I am able to paste 13 paragraphs of my defense. Should I condense all the paragraphs or get rid of some of them?A claim was issued against me on 15/11/2024
My acknowledgment of service was submitted on 26/11/2024 at 21:43:34
My acknowledgment of service was received on 27/11/2024 at 08:05:49
When is the last date to submit my defense?With a Claim Issue Date of 15th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th December 2024 to file a Defence.
That's a little over a week 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'.3 -
I've decided to add one more paragraph to my my Defense. Let me know what do you think.The Defendant recalls that some of the passengers in the vehicle visited, or intended to visit, both McDonald’s and Starbucks, while others visited only McDonald’s. Regardless, the vehicle was parked for less than one hour, which according to the terms displayed, entitles customers to one hour of free parking. Therefore, the Claimant had no grounds to issue a parking charge in this instance.
0 -
My condensed defense. This is the max length which I am allowed to enter:" 1. Liability Denied: The Defendant denies that the Claimant is
entitled to the relief sought or any relief. It is denied that any
conduct by the driver breached any terms. Further, it is denied
that this Claimant (understood to have a bare license 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').
2. POC Issues: The Defendant's facts come from personal knowledge
and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a
cut-and-paste, incoherent, and sparse statement of case. The POC
appears to breach CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7, and fails to "state
all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete
cause of action." The Defendant cannot understand with certainty
what case or allegations are being pursued based on the POC,
making it difficult to respond adequately. However, the vehicle is
recognized, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the
registered keeper.
3. Notice to Keeper: The alleged contravention occurred on 08 July
2023, but the Notice to Keeper was issued on 04 August 2023 and
delivered on 11 August 2023, exceeding the 14-day period required
by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), Schedule 4,
Paragraph 9(5). Therefore, the Claimant has failed to comply with
the requirements of POFA, and as a result, they cannot hold the
vehicle's keeper liable for the alleged charge.
4. Passenger Visits: The Defendant recalls that some of the
passengers in the vehicle visited, or intended to visit, both
McDonald’s and Starbucks, while others visited only McDonald’s.
Regardless, the vehicle was parked for less than one hour, which
according to the terms displayed, entitles customers to one hour
of free parking. Therefore, the Claimant had no grounds to issue a
parking charge in this instance.
5. Confusing Parking Operation: The MET parking operation at
Southgate Car Park has been deliberately designed to confuse
drivers. Various signs within the car park indicate that customers
are entitled to one hour's free parking, but these signs do not
specify any particular restaurant, only stating that customers
must stay “on the site.” Other signs designate specific areas for
McDonald’s or Starbucks customers only. However, these two
restaurants are approximately four meters apart and are situated
in what many drivers would perceive as a single car park.
Furthermore, there are no clearly defined boundaries delineating
the different zones within the car park. Google Street View
reveals that the signage is obscured by large restaurant banners,
adding to the confusion and making it difficult for drivers to
comply with the parking restrictions.
6. No Financial Loss: The Claimant will concede that no financial
loss has arisen. To impose an inflated parking charge, there must
be a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere
compensation for loss, and 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty
clause' charge, which requires prominent signs and lines. The
Defendant contends that neither of these conditions has been met.
7. Debt Fees Denied: The '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. The exaggerated
claim is currently being addressed by the UK Government.
8. Unfair Claim: This claim is unfair and inflated, and it is
denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. The Claimant
routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN,
despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it. 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.
9. CRA Breaches: The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities (DLUHC) published a statutory Parking Code of Practice
in February 2022. The CRA creates a statutory duty upon courts to
consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not.
The claim breaches the CRA, requiring prominent terms and fairness
in signage and communication. The Claimant's signage and terms do
not meet the required standards for fairness and clarity. Examples
from the CRA, such as those in Schedule 2, demonstrate the
obligations for clear and fair dealings in consumer contracts.
10. ParkingEye v Beavis Distinguished: Unlike in Beavis, the
penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate
sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness
because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it
prominently proclaimed on the signs. The Claimant has failed those
tests, with small signs, hidden terms, and minuscule small print
that is incapable of binding a driver. Precedents like Spurling v
Bradshaw, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd, and Vine v London
Borough of Waltham Forest establish that adequate notice of terms
is essential.
11. Lack of Standing: The Claimant must prove authority to form
contracts at the site. The Claimant is put to strict proof of
their standing to litigate. DVLA data is only supplied if there is
an agreement flowing from the landholder, and it is not accepted
that this Claimant has such authority.
12. ADR Failure: The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely
independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code
shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs canceled,
had a fair ADR existed. The reliance on biased Trade Bodies'
appeals services undermines the fairness of the claim process.
13. Public Interest: There is evidence to support the view that
these are knowingly exaggerated claims causing consumer harm. The
claim is without merit, and the POC is embarrassing. The Defendant
believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded
claims like this should be struck out. The July 2023 DLUHC IA
analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less
than the sum claimed for it.
14. Costs: The Defendant seeks standard witness costs for
attendance at court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and a finding of
unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, and further costs pursuant
to CPR 46.5. Attention is drawn to the distinct possibility of an
unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6
states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after
discontinuance, this does not normally apply to claims allocated
to the small claims track. However, costs should be awarded if a
party has behaved unreasonably. "
0 -
KeithP said:
Firstly, there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.METscamFighter said:I am about to submit my defense on Money Claim Online and the space is limited (122 lines). I am able to paste 13 paragraphs of my defense. Should I condense all the paragraphs or get rid of some of them?A claim was issued against me on 15/11/2024
My acknowledgment of service was submitted on 26/11/2024 at 21:43:34
My acknowledgment of service was received on 27/11/2024 at 08:05:49
When is the last date to submit my defense?With a Claim Issue Date of 15th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th December 2024 to file a Defence.
That's a little over a week 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'.Thank you very much for a prompt reply, KeithP.I have reverted back to the document based on the template. I am intended to use all the paragraphs as long as you thing they apply to my case.my DEFENCE as follow, Paragraphs #4 and onward I intend to use, just will change the numbers as I added two extra paragraphs. Bold text is added by me. I'll un-bold it on my document.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').
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.
3. The alleged contravention occurred on 08 July 2023, but the Notice to Keeper was issued on 04 August 2023 and delivered on 11 August 2023. This exceeds the 14-day period required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5), which states that a Notice to Keeper must be served within 14 days of the alleged contravention. Therefore, the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA, and as a result, they cannot hold the vehicle's keeper liable for the alleged charge.
4. The Defendant contends that the MET parking operation at Southgate Car Park has been deliberately designed to confuse drivers. Various signs within the car park indicate that customers are entitled to one hour's free parking, but these signs do not specify any particular restaurant, only stating that customers must stay “on the site”. Other signs designate specific areas for McDonald’s or Starbucks customers only. However, these two restaurants are approximately four meters apart and are situated in what many drivers would perceive as a single car park. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined boundaries delineating the different zones within the car park. Google Street View reveals that the signage is obscured by large restaurant banners, adding to the confusion and making it difficult for drivers to comply with the parking restrictions.
5. The Defendant recalls that some of the passengers in the vehicle visited, or intended to visit, both McDonald’s and Starbucks, while others visited only McDonald’s. Regardless, the vehicle was parked for less than one hour, which according to the terms displayed, entitles customers to one hour of free parking. Therefore, the Claimant had no grounds to issue a parking charge in this instance.
0 -
Looks good now you've realised that you AREN'T putting it in on MCOL but I don't understand why you thought that. You saw that we have a long template defence - used every single day - and clearly it's not put into any MCOL box by any poster. So it's surprising to hear you started cutting it down.
At least you stopped!
Just follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't go wrong again and that you don't need to ask us (please...) about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.
We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.
See you in a few months at WS and exhibits stage. Everything else in between is standard and already in the sticky threads.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I trust you have watched the Joe Lycett video on youtube about this MET scam site
One car park operated by MET which is split into two to scam customers
Why the BPA allows this scam is beyond belief and goes to show, the BPA is not fit for purpose1 -
"5. The Defendant recalls that some of the passengers in the vehicle visited, or intended to visit, both McDonald’s and Starbucks, while others visited only McDonald’s."
Just thinking out loud - defending as keeper only, but the above seems, to me, to imply the Defendant is driver.
Perhaps include "the driver and" as follows:-
"5. The Defendant recalls that the driver and some of the passengers in the vehicle visited, or intended to visit, both McDonald’s and Starbucks, while others visited only McDonald’s."2 -
Thank you very much for your help guys.I've just have watched the Joe Lycett video today. Interesting but I'll be laughing when this all is over. It is beyond my understanding why those kind of scams are able to operate.I have adjusted my defence as you suggested, many thanks. Added one more paragraph. Attached the changes only. Please feel free to comment.
3. The alleged contravention occurred on 08 July 2023, but the Notice to Keeper was issued on 04 August 2023 and delivered on 11 August 2023. This exceeds the 14-day period required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5), which states that a Notice to Keeper must be served within 14 days of the alleged contravention. Therefore, the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA, and as a result, they cannot hold the vehicle's keeper liable for the alleged charge.
4. Furthermore, the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the exact period of parking as required by POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). The Notice only mentions 'the period of parking immediately prior to 10:05 on 08 July 2023,' without providing a clear, precise duration. This lack of detail does not comply with POFA’s requirements, which further invalidates the Notice and the Claimant’s ability to hold the vehicle's keeper liable for the alleged charge.
6. The Defendant recalls that the driver and some of the passengers in the vehicle visited, or intended to visit, both McDonald’s and Starbucks. Regardless, the vehicle was parked for less than one hour, which according to the terms displayed, entitles customers to one hour of free parking. Therefore, the Claimant had no grounds to issue a parking charge in this instance.
Tomorrow I'll try to scan my signature using my mobile as I don't have a printer and stick it on the document.I have last question about the telephone Mediation.How will they know my mobile number if I've never gave it to them?Who is the person calling? Someone appointed by the Claimant or someone appointed by the court?Kind regards
0 -
Questions/answers about telephone mediation (and anything else) will be found in the NEWBIE sticky and/or the template defence thread and/or the 12 steps. The mediator is a neutral person appointed by CNBC. Surely, if they don't have a telephonic method of contacting you, they will ask you when/before setting up the mediation call.1
-
Thank you everyone for help.I've completed first 5 steps. Step 6 says IMPORTANT - MAKE SURE YOU GET AN EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BACK FROM THE CCBC!Is that a typo?I've received email from ClaimResponses.CNBC <ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk>Re: Auto Reply - Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk
'Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days
When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B"Documents not complying will not be accepted, in particular if it is over 10MB or 25 printed pages in size.
(link removed as I am not allowed to post it) '
Is that the acknowledgement email you're talking about in step 6?I am sorry if my question sounds silly but I just want to be sure that no mistakes are made.Kind regards
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards