Drafting my Defence for Court Claim from MET Parking Services (Southgate Park, Stansted)

MadridistaCR7

Hi All,

The dreaded Southgate Park at Stansted Airport. MET Parking Services being represented by DCB Legal.

I received the Notice of Hearing a while back, and have been reading through the forum and newbie thread to help me inform my defence. The hearing date is 19th August 2025 at Croydon County Court.

I received a many calls and emails from DCB regarding the case with them wanting to settle, each time I have refused and advised I rather have the hearing.

 My defence is mainly based on being the registered keeper, not the driver, and as such cannot be pursued due to the carpark being covered under the airport bylaws.

Do we think the statement below is enough? FYI exhibits 2-5 were links that I've had to remove.  

Many thanks in advance. 

IN THE COUNTY COURT at Croydon

Claim No.:  xxxx

 Between

 

MET PARKING SERVICES LTD

(Claimant)

- and –

xxxx

(Defendant)

 _________________

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT

 

THE FACTS

I, XXXX, of XXXX, state as follows:

1. I am the Defendant and the Registered Keeper

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number [XXXXXX], but I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident on 05/12/2022 at Southgate, Stansted Airport. 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.

2. The Alleged Parking Location Falls Under Statutory Control

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. I have attached a map (Exhibit 1) clearly showing that the location (Southgate car park) is within the land covered by these byelaws.

3. Land Governed by Byelaws is Not “Relevant Land” Under POFA

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only applies to 'relevant land'. Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 defines 'relevant land' and excludes land subject to statutory control, such as airport byelaws. Therefore, the Claimant cannot rely on POFA to hold me, as the registered keeper, liable for any unpaid parking charge.

4. The Claimant Has Not Identified the Driver

As the Claimant has not identified the driver and cannot transfer liability under POFA, there is no legal basis for pursuing me as the registered keeper. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and decline to do so.

5. The Claim is Without Merit and Should Be Dismissed

The Claimant has no cause of action against me. I respectfully request the Court strike out or dismiss this claim on the basis that no liability can arise under POFA and the Claimant has failed to establish any alternative basis for keeper liability.

 

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE

6. 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 2 -

b.     The Daily Mail: "Couple hit with £60 fine despite parking in FREE car park near Stansted Airport" [EXHIBIT 3 - 

c.     Essex Live: "Essex's most ridiculous car park" [EXHIBIT 4 - 

d.     The Guardian: "Parking fine: Starbucks, McDonalds, Stansted Southgate Park" [EXHIBIT 5 - 

7. 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.

LEGAL GROUND FOR DEFENCE

8.  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.

9.  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.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  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

14.  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.

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. 

Coupon-mad

That's good.

Remove the words 'LEGAL GROUND FOR DEFENCE' which is a weird and distracting heading because your main legal ground for defence is this:

"My defence is mainly based on being the registered keeper, not the driver, and as such cannot be pursued due to the carpark being covered under the airport bylaws."

Yep that is a complete defence.

DCB Legal will discontinue before the hearing fee is due for them to pay anyway. Please please show us the NoD when they email it over, so you can then be added to @Umkomaas' disco thread!

MadridistaCR7

Thanks for the super speedy response Coupon! Of course, I'll keep the thread going with progress updates. One last question: 

Should I send this off now, or wait a little closer to the hearing date?

Thanks again :-)

Gr1pr

When is the WS submission deadline   ?

Have you received the WS bundle from the claimant yet   ?

MadridistaCR7

Hi Gr1pr; the submission deadline is the 22nd July (though I need to confirm this for sure). I am yet to receive the WS bundle from MET / DCB. I assume this will consist of the evidence they have against me?

Coupon-mad

Wait then.

No, they wan't send a WS. They'll discontinue and it's the attached NoD we need to see!

MadridistaCR7

Thanks again Coupon. Just to clarify, you think I should wait a bit longer before sending my WS?

1505grandad

When are  MET supposed to pay the Court fees by?

MadridistaCR7

Thanks for taking a look at this 1505grandad. The Notice of Trial notes the following:

Hearing Location: Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Hearing Date: 19th August 2025
Hearing Time: 10am
Claimant to pay court fees by: 4pm on 22nd July 2025.

WS is due no later than 14 days before the hearing.

Also my Home Court is Croydon and this scheduled to take place at the Royal Courts of Justice. Is that normal, or are MET planning something special for me? 

Gr1pr

So your WS deadline is 5th of August,  so wait until the beginning of August, but do check if the court fee has been paid in late July first

I think that London has a special allocation department,  it's probably got nothing to do with MET, especially as you specified your local court,  not the Claimant  ( so bin the paranoia and stop overthinking this  )

MadridistaCR7

Thanks for clarifying Gr1pr! I'll keep calm and sit tight (for now). Will defo update this thread as and when.