MET PARKING DCB LEGAL court claim

eits1000

What does POC stand for? 

Le_Kirk

eits1000 said:

What does POC stand for? 

POC = Particulars of Claim

eits1000

Hi, I have not registered receipt of the documents online yet. I received a phone call just now from the manager at the BP petrol station whom I  went to see a week ago to complain about my predicament.

She told me that she contacted met parking to tell them I am a regular customer etc... And she confirms that they have agreed to cancel the ticket with immediate effect. She has sent me an email to that effect (from her, not met parking). 

What should I do now? I know you mentioned that it's too late for that as proceedings have  been escalated towards court, but according to the vp manager it's over. 

Any advice from here? 

Thank you in advance. 

Gr1pr

Its not officially over until you receive an official Notice of Discontinuance from DCB Legal,  until then keep following the legal process regardless

Please Change your thread title to something more suitable too, like 

MET PARKING DCB LEGAL court claim 

Also email MET PARKING litigation section to discontinue due to the business cancelling the pcn, and CC the DCB Legal team so they get it too, ask for the N279 document to be issued ASAP 

Coupon-mad

eits1000 said:

Hi, I have not registered receipt of the documents online yet. I received a phone call just now from the manager at the BP petrol station whom I  went to see a week ago to complain about my predicament.

She told me that she contacted met parking to tell them I am a regular customer etc... And she confirms that they have agreed to cancel the ticket with immediate effect. She has sent me an email to that effect (from her, not met parking). 

What should I do now? I know you mentioned that it's too late for that as proceedings have  been escalated towards court, but according to the vp manager it's over. 

Any advice from here? 

You MUST defend. Nothing has changed.

In all current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Your defence will be 30 paragraphs with the only work required by you being:

1.  to change the headings;

2. add 'and driver' (if you were) to para 2;

3. change the date in the linked new 'standard' para 3 shown above, and

4. add this as 3.1:

3.1.  The manager at the BP petrol station has contacted MET Parking in full support of the Defendant's dispute. She confirms this week that MET have agreed to cancel the ticket with immediate effect. There is no landowner support for this unfair charge and therefore no commercial justification or legitimate interest in pursuing it further. 

eits1000

Hi again, I just received a call from the BP petrol station manager whom I went to see to complain about my predicament... I have not yet done anything since I posted this thread. 

She told me she had called met parking and explained I am a regular customer and requested a cancellation. Met parking agreed to cancel and i have an email to that effect from the BP manager (not met parking). 

I know that it was stated in earlier responses on this thread that it's too late to discuss this with BP as matters have progressed too far at this stage, but according to the BP manager it's all cancelled. 

My question is, what happens now, is it over or do I still need to proceed with the online application to defend? 

Many thanks in advance. 

Le_Kirk

Your question(s) were answered by @Coupon-mad in the post above your latest one.

eits1000

So just to clarify, when I log my defence I should copy and paste the below, amending as per your 4 points above? 

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, but NOT the driver at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

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

Coupon-mad

You need to re-read what I gave you.

eits1000

I'm referring to these points you made, apologies I'm getting a bit confused with all the threads and things to read come up what is it that I'm copy and pasting that has 30 paragraphs in it?

, I understand that I then need to amend with these points that you have made

1.  to change the headings;

2. add 'and driver' (if you were) to para 2;

3. change the date in the linked new 'standard' para 3 shown above, and

4. add this as 3.1:

3.1.  The manager at the BP petrol station has contacted MET Parking in full support of the Defendant's dispute. She confirms this week that MET have agreed to cancel the ticket with immediate effect. There is no landowner support for this unfair charge and therefore no commercial justification or legitimate interest in pursuing it further.