MET parking ticket Stansted McDonalds

[des8]

You can acknowledge the claim online (look at the "important notes" on front of claim form.

post 29..No pdf??

[des8]

how can I delete the attachment?

There is an edit button in blue bar at bottom of your post.
I assume that will enable you to delete it.

[ULA]

I have removed the attachment @ #25 due to the personal information being visible.

[logies]

revised claim form attached

[des8]

Now await response to CPR request or a nudge at beginning of February!

[logies]

Now await response to CPR request or a nudge at beginning of February!

Thanks

[logies]

email arrived this morning from DCB Legal with the attached PDF's

[logies]

images pdf show that I was driving and not my son who was the registered at the time

[des8]

Delete Post 38n as it identifies the driver and parking companies do trawl these sites

I'll produce a draft defence you can use (if you want) tomorrow

[logies]

Delete Post 38n as it identifies the driver and parking companies do trawl these sites

I'll produce a draft defence you can use (if you want) tomorrow

Cant seem to delete the post..

[des8]

Is the edit button in blue bar at bottom of post not working?

[des8]

Draft suggested possible defence for your son;

1. .The Defendant received the claim xxx from MET Parking services Ltd on dd/mm/yy
2. .Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
   Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
   1. state that the terms of a contract between the Claimant and the Driver were breached but also refers to “PCN(s)” which implies that there are, or may be, multiple contract breaches .The PoC is unclear about
      1. the number of PCN(s) that the Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant together with an itemisation list of charges related to those PCN(s); and
      2. whether the PCN(s) (if more than one) were issued for the same breach of parking conditions at the same location or that the PCN(s) relate to different locations or both; and
   2. the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liability.
   
   .
4. It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate and merely provide a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
5. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
   1. make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
   2. If the Claimant should comply with such an order , the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
      Or
   3. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   4. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

6. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.
Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
7it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time the alleged parking offence(s) occurred.
8The Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged parking infringement(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are groundless and appear to be nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
Defendant’s liability as the Registered Keeper
9. It is admitted the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx with the registration number xxxx
10.It is denied that the Defendant is liable as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle for the PCN(s) as alleged
11.Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA2012”) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land.
12.Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.
.13.The Claimant has failed to comply with some or all of those mandated conditions
.
14 Further and alternatively, condition 5(1)(b) of POFA2012 forbids the Claimant from pursuing the Registered Keeper if the Claimant has knowledge of the driver and their details.
15.In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity. It follows that Claimant cannot pursue the Defendant for the PCN(s) as the Registered Keeper. The Defendant will rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA Explanatory Notes, which states that: “… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity” (emphasis added)
Recovery of Claimant’s unspecified damages
16. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery unspecified damages in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant as either the driver or the Registered Keeper for the following reasons:

1. 1. in respect of liability as the driver the Defendant repeats paragraphs 7 - 8 (inclusive) of this Defence
   2. . in respect of liability as the registered keeper condition 4(5) of POFA provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.

CONCLUSION
17 For the reasons set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the Registered Keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the PCN(s) or to any relief as claimed.
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.
Sign &; date

[logies]

thank you. i will speak to my son this evening

[logies]

Draft suggested possible defence for your son;

1. .The Defendant received the claim xxx from MET Parking services Ltd on dd/mm/yy
2. .Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
   Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
   1. state that the terms of a contract between the Claimant and the Driver were breached but also refers to “PCN(s)” which implies that there are, or may be, multiple contract breaches .The PoC is unclear about
      1. the number of PCN(s) that the Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant together with an itemisation list of charges related to those PCN(s); and
      2. whether the PCN(s) (if more than one) were issued for the same breach of parking conditions at the same location or that the PCN(s) relate to different locations or both; and
   2. the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liability.
   
   .
4. It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate and merely provide a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
5. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
   1. make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
   2. If the Claimant should comply with such an order , the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
      Or
   3. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   4. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

6. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.
Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
7it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time the alleged parking offence(s) occurred.
8The Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged parking infringement(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are groundless and appear to be nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
Defendant’s liability as the Registered Keeper
9. It is admitted the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx with the registration number xxxx
10.It is denied that the Defendant is liable as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle for the PCN(s) as alleged
11.Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA2012”) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land.
12.Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.
.13.The Claimant has failed to comply with some or all of those mandated conditions
.
14 Further and alternatively, condition 5(1)(b) of POFA2012 forbids the Claimant from pursuing the Registered Keeper if the Claimant has knowledge of the driver and their details.
15.In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity. It follows that Claimant cannot pursue the Defendant for the PCN(s) as the Registered Keeper. The Defendant will rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA Explanatory Notes, which states that: “… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity” (emphasis added)
Recovery of Claimant’s unspecified damages
16. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery unspecified damages in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant as either the driver or the Registered Keeper for the following reasons:

1. 1. in respect of liability as the driver the Defendant repeats paragraphs 7 - 8 (inclusive) of this Defence
   2. . in respect of liability as the registered keeper condition 4(5) of POFA provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.

CONCLUSION
17 For the reasons set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the Registered Keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the PCN(s) or to any relief as claimed.
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.
Sign &; date

thank you for this. i have completed and presume that i no log into the online portal and submit?

[des8]

I think you will find it needs to be attached as a PDF to an email

That is only a template for you to work from...I try to make it as applicable as possible but do not just blindly copy and paste.