Met Parking Services - (346) Southgate Park Stansted | DCB Legal Ltd Civil claim

Unmovable3796

Hi forumites,

This is a first for me. Never posted anything in forums before, but I am need of urgent help, if there is anyone that can provide assistance I would be extremely grateful. 

In December 2023, I took a couple of friends to McDonald's, I can't remember the exact time, but it was early hours between 00:01 and 02:00 as I had just left a work Christmas party.

Of course like many others I drove in without much regard for signage as it appeared like a normal car park, and who's like at signs at that time of night? I pulled up in what they class as the Starbucks car park and walked over. I was only there for around 20 minutes, 30 minutes tops, but Starbucks wasn't open at that time. 

I then got a letter through for a Parking charge from MET Parking Services, after looking them up and seeing a few threads here, I concluded that it was just a scam and threw away the original letter.

Since then I have been bombarded with letters from them to pay, which I again ignored on the basis of believing it is a scam. 

Fast forward to now, where I have been hit with a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service, where DCB Legal want to take me to court over it, with a possible chance of a CCJ. 

I have never dealt with anything like this before and would like some guidance on how to proceed please? 

Should I fight this or pay?

LDast

You certainly don't pay. Read the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread for advice on what to do once you receive a claim form.

You are only responding as the Keeper. They have no idea of who the driver is. Whatever happens, don't tell 'em your name Pike! 

Coupon-mad

Of course you don't pay! This is very simple.

Defending a small claim is EASIER than appeal would have been, and DCB Legal always discontinue in the end.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service? Your MCOL Claim History will have the answer to that, assuming you've read the Second post of the NEWBIES thread and have done it. If not: do it now!

Then tell us the two dates and show us the POC, just like you see shown by people like you in every exact same DCB Legal thread. Read a few. They're almost all the same.

Unmovable3796

Hi @Coupon-mad,

Thank you for getting back to me so soon. 

The issue date on my Claim Form is 18 Feb 2025.

I have just filed the Acknowledge Of Service 6 Mar 2025.

Please see image below of my POC.



What are your recommendations for me from here please?

Coupon-mad

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) 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

No need for more detail except if you have something important to add about the site, signs, circumstances, or the allegation.

KeithP

Unmovable3796 said:

The issue date on my Claim Form is 18 Feb 2025.
I have just filed the Acknowledge Of Service 6 Mar 2025.

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Unmovable3796

Sorry for the late return, I have been feeling a little anxious and trying to comprehend what I need to do/write. I have used the below:

"IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx

Between

MET Parking Services Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Myself

 (Defendant)

_________________

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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. 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 09/12/2023" (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.

7. 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.

8. 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..."

Would this be correct for my defence, please?

Coupon-mad

You aren't using the version with Chan & Akande (not relevant to your case) just the usual Template Defence where your 'Regarding the POC paragraph is para 3.  Admit to driving in that para, as well as being the keeper.

Then add a 3.1 NOT MENTIONING MCDONALDS but saying there's one big car park for several restaurants and any alleged 'overstay' is denied. It was pitch black in December and the signs and surface markings were not lit, so any contract is denied. 

Unmovable3796

Thank you, would this work? 

3.1 The Defendant further denies that any ‘overstay’ occurred or that any parking terms were capable of being fairly and clearly communicated. The site in question comprises a large shared car park serving multiple restaurants, and no evidence has been provided that clearly delineates the relevant parking areas or their respective restrictions. At the time of the alleged incident in December, visibility was severely limited due to darkness, and the Claimant’s signs and surface markings were not illuminated. The Defendant avers that no contract was capable of being formed in these conditions, as the fundamental elements of agreement (offer, acceptance, and consideration) were absent. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the positioning, prominence, and lighting of any signage at the material time.

Coupon-mad

Yep - all done!

patient_dream

MET PARKING .... STANSTED ... STARBUCKS AND MCDONALDS

As you know, this is a money scam already exposed.  The courts know about this scam and so do DCBL so it's all a try on 

Only a very brave legal would take this to court and prepare for a spanking by a judge

It seems that DCBL are not that brave legal as thry have ckickened out from nearly 500 cases. This is a game you play with DCBL, let them waste their time, it's their hobby

Discontinuation is on way after they see all the facts ....  and you see the the 

nonsensical letters from them

We have seen them all so play the DCBL game. its easier than monopoly