Do I defend myself in person at Civil National Business Centre, against parking fine

[mayj65]

I've been disputing a Parking Charge Notice, with Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd since October 2022, with regular correspondence back and forth. I now have a court claim against me in the Civil National Business Centre, Northampton. I have submitted an online acknowledgement of Service and have a couple of days to submit my defence.

Two Questions

1. Do the courts consider the claim and my online defence statement, and then notify both parties of their judgement or will we have to go to court and therefore need legal representation?
2. Is my defence below enough to win the case - It seems cut and dried to me, there are regulations in place which MET did not comply to, thus making the parking charge unenforceable - no??

THE CLAIM....
My car parked at Southgate Park, Stansted and did not pay anything. The driver and occupants walked out of the parking area, in the direction of McDonalds, which contravened the T & C's (on the signs)
The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.

The parking contravention took place on 6th July 2018. MET Parking Services chased me for payment for a while, which I consistently disputed as per the below, then I heard nothing for years, until October 2022 when I was contacted by DCBL.

At no point have I admitted to MET Parking Services or DCBL to being the driver at the time.

MY DEFENCE.....
When the parking contravention occurred the law was such that the registered keeper did not have to identify the driver.

By failing to notify me as keeper within 14 days of the contravention, MET parking did not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges, Section 9 (4) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

At no time have I ever agreed (other than by default possibly), to pay the charge


The parking signage at the time did not make it at all clear that leaving Southgate Park was not allowed (I'm aware that I am one of many, many drivers caught out in this way, on this site).
I have never mentioned this in my defence because
A. I have never admitted to being the driver, and so how would I know what the signs said, and B. I have no photographic proof of the signs at the time.

MET have sent me photographs of my car entering the carpark and the occupants leaving Southgate Park and returning within about 35 minutes - although there is no proof of where they went to.

MET also sent me images of the parking area showing where the signs are erected (photos date stamped 23.9.2016, nearly 2 years before the event), but you can't read the wording of those signs.
They also sent me close ups images of a number of signs which do say that car drivers must not leave the Southgate Park but these are not date stamped and so could have been taken of new signage, erected long after the event.

Anyway, the signage details are immaterial because I have never admitted to being the driver.
My defence is purely METs failure to comply with the Notice to Keeper regulations at the time (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)

Look forward to receiving your answers to my 2 questions above and your opinions on the strength of my case - I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF DAYS TO SUBMIT MY DEFENCE OF PAY UP.

Thank you

[des8]

1)It will end up in court, unless they withdraw the claim.
You don't need a solicitor, and it would not be cost effective to employ one.

2)You claim they failed to notify you within 14 days of the event.
That should be sufficient to see them off, but are you sure of your position.
In practice that revolves round the issue date (PoFA2012 Schedule 4 sec 9 (6)
If the NTK was issued within time but delayed in post you will need to prove that delay

3)re signage... who knows who the judge will believe.
You can throw doubt on their "proof", but cannot show otherwise

If they have a photo of the two occupants leaving the park, does that not prove you were not the driver? or is it too indistinct?

[mayj65]

The Notice To Registered Keeper from MET Parking Services states the date of contravention as 6th July 2018 and the Date of Issue is 8th August 2018.
So way outside the 14 day stipulation

I have never admitted to being the driver, but the pictures prove it was me driving - I'm assuming that even though they will discover I was the driver, it won't matter because the fact remains that they did not notify me within the 14 days.

[des8]

If they discover the identity of the driver they do not have to rely on PoFA2012 and have 6 years in which to initiate court action.
Suggest you edit your posts so that if they read them they cannot infer the identity of the driver.

Failure to notify within the time limits should see them off!

[mayj65]

Hi,

I'm confused as to which defence would be my strongest - below are the flaws in MET's case.

Should I site all of the below as reasons why I am defending the claim - or stick to just points 1 and 2, because to site point 3 would only be relevant, had I been the driver and therefor my defence would be insufficient/unclear signage. Or is it pertinent to raise the signage issue if only to cast doubt on their case.
- HELP PLEASE !!!!

1.They failed to meet the time limit to issue the NTK

2. On the claim form in the 'Particulars of Claim' point 4 states "The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not" That is frankly untrue
and it says "D is liable as the driver or keeper"

3. The images of various signs around the car park sent to me by DCBL make no sense - The images of signs from a distance, to show positioning, do not marry up with the close up images of each sign. they're totally different. And the arial site photo, showing sign locations, is contradictory to the other images.

Look forward to your speedy reply - time is running out for my defence submission

Thank you very much for your time with this

[des8]

It might be helpful to see the FULL EXACT wording of the particulars of claim.

However 1) should suffice
2) has no chance as the 28 days is part of the contractual terms agreed by driver even if not realised
3)As the keeper you could go to the Park to check the signage

Have you seen this article?https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...southgate-park
No use in your defence but interesting

[mayj65]

Yes, I had seen that article.
I have recently read somewhere that back in 2018/19 when this issue was quite widely publicised, almost none of these parking tickets were taken to court, but that recently MET's debt collectors have started to follow through with court action - I wonder why???

I thought I'd also read that the ruling that the keeper does not have to reveal the driver no longer stands and they must now declare the driver's details
Do you know if this is true ??? Maybe I imagined it !!!

[mayj65]

Should I tell DCBL now, that their signage images and site plan make no sense or reveal that in court ??

[des8]

Yes, I had seen that article.
I have recently read somewhere that back in 2018/19 when this issue was quite widely publicised, almost none of these parking tickets were taken to court, but that recently MET's debt collectors have started to follow through with court action - I wonder why??? For money

I thought I'd also read that the ruling that the keeper does not have to reveal the driver no longer stands and they must now declare the driver's details
Do you know if this is true ??? Maybe I imagined it or read it on a parking company site. Anyway there is no legal requirement to identify the driver !!!

Responses in red

[mayj65]

You say they are now taking the unpaid notices to court for money, that makes me nervous as it follows that they are winning the cases!!!

[des8]

Should I tell DCBL now, that their signage images and site plan make no sense or reveal that in court ??

No, you will detail the inadequacy of the signage in your witness statement.

Here's a template defence you can use to write your own defence if you want bearing in mind we have only seen edited parts of the claim)

1.The Defendant received the claim xxx from the CCBC on xxx

2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3.This claim appears to be a parking charge following a breach of contract

4.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of Vehicle xxxx is reg

5.The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess The Defendant's position with regards the claim.

6.. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim are unclear on whether the Defendant was the driver or was the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

7.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimant provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

8.in the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

9.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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.

[des8]

You say they are now taking the unpaid notices to court for money, that makes me nervous as it follows that they are winning the cases!!!

they win some lose some.
For them it is a numbers game, and county court is a bit of a lottery anyway

[mayj65]

Hi,

Attached is the full claim particulars.

Thank you for all your advice and guidance, and for the template

[jamesjg1]

Hi, I've just received a claim from MET Parking Services (very similar to the above). The sense I get is the Southgate Park, Stanstead services site has been set up in order to confuse & entrap drivers. I hope to have my day in court with this lot. I understand it's a lottery, but I will be doing my level best to get TV/Radio/Newspapers on board. All the best of luck MAYj65 & all.

[mayj65]

And good luck to you too. I have a few days left to decide whether to give in or go to court