MET Stansted Southgate NTK - just appeal

KlugeHans

I shortened the Defence following the template more strictly. I edited para 3. and removed para 10. All POCs are still addressed, but without explicitly linking paras of the Defence to the POCs. Any thoughts?

DEFENCE

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. Regarding the POC:

3.1. The Claimant cannot pursue the Defendant as the keeper on invoke “keeper liability”. The alleged incident occurred within the grounds of Stansted Airport. This area is governed by Stansted Airport Byelaws 1997, made under the Aviation Security Act 1982. Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3.2. The Claimant cannot pursue the Defendant as the alleged driver. The Claimant explicitly admitted that the driver is unknown. The Defendant in his capacity as the registered keeper is under no obligation to identify the driver and refuses to do so. Outwith the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal in private parking cases: (i) Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith (C0DP9C4E, June 2017) and (ii) Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward (H0KF6C9C, April 2023).

3.3. Signage at the site where the alleged contravention took place is insufficient. 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 the site. A reasonable person would understand "leaving the site" to mean leaving the entire Southgate Park premises. Furthermore, small signs with hidden terms and minuscule print were used that are incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of 'adequate notice' include: Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2, Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH:

I, [ ], believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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.

Le_Kirk

KlugeHans said:

Le_Kirk said:

What is the issue date of the claim form?  If you tell us that date, we can give you some information regarding your deadlines.
That defence looks overly long and the outdated statement of truth shows you have copied an old defence from the forum.  Can I point you to the template defence thread that is on of the announcements on the first page of the forum?

1/Dates:  Claim form issue date Sep 15th, so day of services should be Sep 20th (5 days). I have sent my AoS through MCOL immediately so I should have until Oct 18th, but I was hoping to submit by Oct 4th (14 days) so there is absolutely no doubt about default judgment (maybe I am being overcautious?)

With an issue date of 15/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 20/10/25 You have a couple more days because your defence due date falls on a Saturday so is adjusted to Monday

Le_Kirk

I don't believe you need a statement of truth in a defence that is filed on MCOL because part of the process asks you if it is true; I was only using the fact that you used an outdated SOT to indicate that you hadn't found the updated template defence.  See what other regulars think about it.