DCB Legal/MET Parking claim received

Romstav

Hi guys/girls,

My friend has received claim form Issue date 05/08/2025 (attached here) We have filed AoS using MCOL on 14/08/2025.
She is registered keeper (driver wasn't reported yet)
I was the driver.
We need help with this case if possible....
Thank you very much

Gr1pr

The defendant should use the new defence template in announcements 

POC allegation is ,   Overstay 

Coupon-mad

Copy another Stansted MET defence recently that says this is not relevant land.

Easy to defend - completely free and risk free - and there will be no hearing if they defend.

Romstav

Coupon-mad said:

Copy another Stansted MET defence recently that says this is not relevant land.

Easy to defend - completely free and risk free - and there will be no hearing if they defend.

Thank you for your reply.
I have searched and there are so many threads...(i have read a few and got confused...sorry)
Can you please point me in right direction?
Defendant/Registered keeper would need to prepare and submit defense through MCOL. Does she need to name driver in that defense?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

We'd have to do the search for you and - sorry to say - we don't do that as it defeats the object. I have no particular thread  in my head.

We want you to see how easy the forum is to research and find similar threads.

I think you're searching wrong. Obviously you need the words 'POFA defence' as well as MET Parking in your keywords and you must change it to NEWEST.

Does she need to name driver in that defence?

No. It's too late now to name the driver. The friend could have transferred it to you at any time before court action but not now.

Romstav

Thank you.

Would that be enough to send this text as defense through MCOL?

"

1. I am the Defendant and the Registered Keeper

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number (.......), but I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident on ...... at BP Stansted SF Connect, Stansted CM24 1PY. 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. The location (BP Stansted SF Connect) 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.

Coupon-mad

Not on its own because there are several matters not mentioned there.

This is also already written as paragraph 3 of every Smart Parking defence thread, including one about a gym (son was driving) that I wrote the other day where the bit you want is para 4 from that one.

I know your PPC isn't Smart Parking but the crux of defence re the POFA is similar. You'd just need to change the bit that says 'Smart never used the POFA' to something about it not being relevant land.

The Defendant's facts paragraph goes concisely into para 3 of the Template Defence, so there will be 10 paragraphs altogether.

Romstav

Completely lost now…
should I use recent defence template and add all this as para 3?
”3. I am the Defendant and the Registered Keeper.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number (.......), but I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident on ...... at BP Stansted SF Connect, Stansted CM24 1PY. 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.

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. The location (BP Stansted SF Connect) is within the land covered by these byelaws.

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.

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.

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.”

All together should be 10 paragraphs…is it correct?
also would it fit into MCOL text box?

thank you

Gr1pr

You can test any complete defence in the defence box by copy and paste and save it, but do NOT submit it until satisfied that it is completed,  you can easily edit it or delete it and replace it should the need arise 

Romstav

Can somebody please check this if it is ok to submit? May be paragraph 3 is too long and need to be shorter?

Thank you

/////////////////////////

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. I am the Defendant and the Registered Keeper of the vehicle with registration number ……., but I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident on 06/07/2023 at BP Stansted SF Connect, Stansted CM24 1PY. 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. 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. The location (BP Stansted SF Connect) is within the land covered by these byelaws. 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. 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.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources, and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

//////////////////////////////////

Coupon-mad

It'll do the job but you could have just scrolled down my recent posts/comments on my profile and adopted the reply I told you I'd made in the Smart Parking gym thread.

Even if you couldn't easily spot that specific reply, half my replies last week were on Smart Parking threads. All of which have a defence posted by now. All of which make the point about the signatory lying about the POFA 2012.. Yours misses that extra point.

(I know your case isn't v Smart. But the argument is similar to all Smart defences).