MET/CST ANPR PCN Claimform - occupants left carpark - (346) SOUTHGATE PARK STANSTED CM24 1PY. **CLAIM DISCONTINUED**

[lostthebrick]

Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business Centre, Northampton, NN1 2LH

Name of the Claimant : MET services Ltd

Claimants Solicitors: CST Law

Date of issue – 7 December 2023

Date for AOS - 25th dec

Date to submit Defence - 8th jan

What is the claim for – 

1.The Claim is for unpaid parking and collection charges for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant. 

2.The Defendant contravened the Claimant's displayed terms and conditions in the car park located at (346) SOUTHGATE PARK STANSTED CM24 1PY. 

3.The breach occurred on 2022-06-24 and for which Parking Charge Notices were issued.

4. The Defendant is the Driver and/or Hirer and/or Owner of the Vehicle with Registration Number XXXX XXX to which parking charges relate. 

The Claimant claims:

1. The sum of £170.00 GBP for monies relating to the parking charge/s as set out above. 

2. Interest in the sum of 18.67 GBP pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% pa from 22/07/22 to date, or such other rate as the court deems fit. 

3. Interest heron in at the same rate until judgement or sooner payment at the daily rate of 0.04 GBP

What is the value of the claim?

Amount Claimed £188.67

court fees £35.00

legal rep fees £50.00

Total Amount £273.67

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? (y/N - if Y state Date too) NO

Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? NO

..............................

 

 

Hi,

I have received a county court claim from CST Law (claimant MET Services Limited) for parking in the Southgate Park, Stansted. 

Parking was for approx 30 minutes, and visited both Starbucks and McDonalds premises. 

I have not responded to any letters or responded to the Notice of Registered Keeper which was dated over 14 days after date of contravention. 

But as this has now proceeded to a court claim I would appreciate any help and advise on how to proceed?

1 Date of the infringement 24 June 2022

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 19th July 2022

3 Date received One or two days after 19th July 2022

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No

7 Who is the parking company? MET Services Ltd

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted Airport

 

[honeybee13]

Hello, welcome to CAG.

Thank you for providing the information above, it makes life much easier all round.

Could you also fill in the parking ticket sticky please because it gives us other details that we can use to help you.

Best, HB

 

[lostthebrick]

Hi honeybee13,

It was a PCN received through the post from an ANPR camera.  I think I've already filled out the required information in the opening post from the link attached?

[honeybee13]

I think you have, apologies. We're more used to seeing the ticket and claimform stickies answered separately. I see they're trying the claim against the driver/keeper/hirer stunt again.

So the next thing you need to do is to sign up to MCOL and do the AoS. Then we can start looking at a defence for you.

HB

[lostthebrick]

Thank you.  Signed up to MCOL and submitted the AOS (dated 13 December).

[honeybee13]

You're doing really well, threads often don't progress this quickly by post #5.

You might like to look again at the court claim sticky which has details of a six point defence that we'll base yours on. No rush to submit that early, let the guys have a look at what's happened first.

HB

[Nicky Boy]

Well done so far brick,

Could you please upload all the documents you've got so far?

[FTMDave]

Thanks for all the information.

Well done on not corresponding with MET and not outing the driver.

Nick is spot on that we need to see their letters, in particular their original invoice as there is a very good chance it hasn't established keeper liability, and also we need to see if they respected the court process and issued a Letter of Claim.

This car park is a scam site and has been shown up as a scam on national television.

For years & years MET didn't dare chance court but in the last month we've seen a spate of court claims.

[dx100uk]

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.

Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...

You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
then log in to the MCOL Website

.select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.then using the details required from the claimform

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim

type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything

.you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

 

thread title updated.

dx

[lostthebrick]

Files attached:

1) Notice to Registered Keeper (dated 19 July 2022)

2) Letter of Claim (dated 10 February 2023)

3) Claim Form (dated 7 December 2023)

ClaimForm 07-12-2023.pdf Letter Of Claim 10-02-2023.pdf NoticeToRegisteredKeeper 19-07-2022.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

The POC are a mess...

"The defendant is the Driver and/or hirer and/or owner of the vehicle"

They missed out "and/or the keeper"

Mind you they can't transfer liability to the keeper, as the NTK was well out of time.

Might be a good time to modify the defence a little, this time guys??

[lolerz]

Is there not a limitation period on the difference between the PAPLOC and the claim form?

I feel like waiting 10 months to issue the claimform is unreasonable and is them trying to inflate the interest as high as possible!

[Nicky Boy]

They have 6 years from when they issue their first invoice...

2 minutes ago, lolerz said:

I feel like waiting 10 months to issue the claimform is unreasonable and is them trying to inflate the interest as high as possible!

Exactly so!

[lolerz]

For the statute of limitations sure.

But their PAPLOC was issued on 10th February 2023 and their claim form was issued 7th December 2023.

10 months to go from Letter before claim to claim form? Seems unreasonable to me, I would have thought after that time another letter of claim would have been needed.

[Nicky Boy]

Agreed.

But, claims have ben issued without PAPLOCS before... and been allowed.

[AndyOrch]

What is the timing of the protocols?

A letter of claim needs to be sent to the client before you issue a claim. If they do not reply within 30 days, then you can start court proceedings.

However, if the client replies to say that they are taking advice, or want more information from you, or want time to reach agreement on instalments, you must give them reasonable time to do this.

If agreement is not reached, then you still have to give at least 14 days’ notice of your intention to start court proceedings, unless the limitation period is about to expire.

[lostthebrick]

Apologies,

I have been looking through my paper work and can see that they sent a second letter before claim dated 17th of October 2023. 

This is identical to the one dated 10th of February 2023 but with the different date. 

I have not responded to any of their letters.

[Homer67]

NTK date of issue is 25 days from event date - out of time to create keeper liability, that's your defence, you weren't driving and are not obliged to say who was (anyway it was your friend from overseas who you have since fallen out with and they have returned home) and the PPC can't use POPLA to create keeper liability therefore the case should not progress to be heard.

[lostthebrick]

Sent CPR 31:14 request (as per dx100uk comment above) to solicitors today by 1st class post recorded.

[wisniawy]

Hello mate .

I’ve started same thread as you with my claim form received on same date 7/12/23 .

Just about to do AOS and probably follow same steps.

Are we able to exchange phone numbers here as I am bit more lost than you with all this but I get the idea 

[dx100uk]

no please don't you don't know who people are on here

either of you could be a plant.

[wisniawy]

Understood 

[FTMDave]

You can easily follow each other's threads.  Just click "Follow" at the top of the thread.  That way you'll get an automatic e-mail when the thread is updated.

Any doubts you have, just ask on your thread.  The regulars will be happy to help.

[dx100uk]

if you post on a thread you are automatically following 

dx

 

[lostthebrick]

Hi everyone,

I know I have until the 8th of January to submit my defence on MCOL but as Christmas and New Year is fast approaching just wanted to get my ducks in a row and any helpful advice/comments on my defence while you guys are still around. 

I've had a look through the forums and understand that a generic defence at this stage needs to be submitted. 

I am assuming the following wording is ok, but any comments or advice much appreciated, as this is not my area of expertise and have never dealt with a court claim before.

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [XXXX XXX]. The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time.

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.

5.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.

6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.