Hi

Nothing has changed since my last post. MCOL is at my „defence submitted”.

 I’m receiving automated calls from DCB legal occasionally from various numbers (which I’m blocking as soon as I receive one). 

Case seems to be paused their side, on the legal level.

 Thanks

Ihave received another communication from DCB

Quote

Re: Our Client:
Met Parking Services Ltd
Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

Having reviewed the content of your Defence, we are writing to inform you that our Client intends to proceed with the claim.

The Court will direct both parties to file directions questionnaires in due course. In anticipation of that we are enclosing a copy.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. Therefore, in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 838 7038 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

In addition to the above I have something what says "Directions questionnaire".

With SAR, I'm not really sure on what to do.

Technically they have failed on that part but having to deal with them on PCN part is stressful already.

I'll use you advice and think about it over the weekend.

Thanks

I only have this:

Quote

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/08/2023 at 12:05:08

Your defence was submitted on 08/09/2023 at 10:11:09

Your defence was received on 08/09/2023 at 12:05:08

So not moved at all since my defence submission...

Hi. All "evidence" signage from DCB Legal is attached below.

I've also started to receive phone calls from them.

One yesterday which I picked up and another one today which I didn't.

Their client (Met Parking) want to negotiate payment for the ticket.

I could barely understand what lady there was saying but they have strictly asked me if I want to discuss this over the phone which felt like a catch top me 

I've asked them to call me back today but haven't picked up the call so they have left voicemail to call them back (still can barely understand what she is saying there ).

Also I still haven't received SAR request from Met Parking.

As their post addresses were confusing I've sent two SAR requests. I have proof of postage for both.

One to (posted on 11/09/2023):

Quote

MET Parking Services Limited,
Cannon Place,
78 Cannon Street,
London,
EC4N 6AF

and one to (posted on 09/09/2023):

Quote

Personal Data Admin,
MET Parking Services Limited,
PO Box 60271,
London EC1P 1GT

claimants pictures signs location.pdf

Let me rephrase this  "It shows how ridiculous the rules and signs are"   

Do you guys have any advice on point 1and 2 of the CPR which are not in the correspondence received from DCB Legal ?
Unless the document attached in my previous post is a ""Proof of planning permission granted for signage" then it's just point 1 missing.

Another Update:

I have received response from solicitors (DCB Legal) to what I assume was my CPR request on Friday (22 Sept 2023).

Quote

We write further to your request for evidence.
In due course, the Court will order that both parties file and serve all evidence they intend to rely on. We confirm you will therefore receive all relevant evidence in advance of the hearing.
Please find attached the evidence we currently have on file.
Yours sincerely,
DCB Legal

From what I see there is no contract between Met Parking and landowner for the Southgate car park.

There is my initial appeal directly to Met Parking and it's awful  But it also shows how unaware I was that I shouldn't leave the site:

Quote

Hello,
I would like to challenge this parking charge.
Reason of charge issued by you is saying "Driver not on Premises" where I actually was in McDonalds...
I was going to stay at McDonalds for food but when entering I have received phone call that person which I was going to pick up from airport is already waiting so literally I have used only toilet in McDonalds and came out back to car. I've been out of my car for only around 5 minutes. Within this time frame there is no way to not be "on premises". Where I would go? On airport..?
There is no chance to be somewhere else.
This charge is really unfair. You do not have any basis to say that I wasn't on the premises.
Please check timeframe of comming and leaving car park, see your cameras properly and you will be able to see that I went into McDonalds. You can check Mac's cameras as well and confirm that I have been there.

I also assume attached site plan is not a "Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007" 
siteplan.pdf

I have all photo evidence of me entering and moving around car park.
My stay was EXACTLY 4:30 minutes ...

There is also photo evidence of all signs around car park dated at 2016.

Update:

I have received mail from HM Courts & Tribunal Service last Friday (15th Sep 2023):

Quote

8th September 2023

I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).

The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.

Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can. then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay.

Along with DCB Legal letter:

Quote

11th September 2023

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case.

I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to accept £290.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £363.04

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:

[Account details]

When making payment please ensure you include the following reference number, [xxxxxxxx], to enable us to allocate it to the correct case.

Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £290.00 we will update the Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal.

They kindly offered me lowered settlement amount of £290 ....

The worst thing is that I don't want to risk CCJ on my record in the case of loosing in court. I'm saving for my first house and CCJ won't help  

I have received SAR from POPLA related to my appeal in 2017. Unfortunately it is missing all uploaded documents (my evidence and MET evidence) due to:

Quote

Please note that due to your case being held on our old legacy system, which has since been decommissioned, we no longer hold any documents sent to us by either yourself or the parking operator.

My initial message to POPLA:

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam I have left my car on the car park that I wasn't aware it belongs to Starbucks and went to McDonalds. It is near Stansted Airport. I've been out of my car just for couple of minutes to use toilet in McDonalds. I'm not very often guest at this property and wasn't aware that I should park in car park designated for McDonalds to use their toilet.

POPLA:

Quote

How long was the free period in the car park?

Me:

Quote

I've been out of my car just to quickly use toilet in McDonalds. There are only 4:35 minutes between I have entered and left car park. I could understand if the charge would occurred when spend longer time for something else than using a toilet. McDonalds car park is literally 20 meters away from Starbucks car park and both are maintained by MET parking services company. Signs look almost exactly the same on both car parks so couldn't clearly tell that you can not use both car parks for all properties there. Especially when you thinking about getting to toilet as soon as possible... I'm attaching satellite map to show where I was parked and where I have actually went to use toilet to show that it could be easily missed that I should park on different car park. £100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for free for up to an hour so MET didn't had any loss because of my stay. I would pay for parking ticket if I would need to. No problem. I feel that charge which I have received is completely unfair

Here, what I assume is MET response to POPLA:

Quote

In his appeal to POPLA Mr XXXXXX acknowledges that he left the premises and visited McDonald’s but states that the signage at the site does not clearly state that Southgate park is a separate site from the nearby McDonald’s. He also states that the parking charge amount does not reflect a loss to us. We are confident that there is sufficient signage in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking. We would also like to state the Supreme Court has ruled that parking charge notices of this nature and amount are commercially justifiable and do not need to reflect a loss to the company. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 19 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include: 60 minutes free stay only and no free stay for McDonald’s; parking is for Southgate Park Stansted customers only, do not leave the premises at any time when your vehicle is parked in the car park; no free parking for McDonald’s. McDonald’s is not on Southgate Park; if you wish to park here for McDonald’s you must pay for parking from when you enter the car park. The signs clearly state in 3 separate conditions that there is no free parking for McDonald’s. McDonald’s is situated adjacent to the Southgate Park site and has its own car park. Mr XXXXX has acknowledged he left the premises of Southgate Park and visited to nearby McDonald’s restaurant. The photographic evidence taken from our CCTV, provided in Section E of our evidence pack, demonstrates that Mr XXXXX was recorded leaving the premises while the vehicle remained parked in the car park. Therefore we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

  

POPLA Analysis & Judgement:

Quote

When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Starbucks customer parking only…60 minutes maximum free stay only…No free stay for McDonalds…If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100 Parking Charge.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has used the car park for other reasons than being a customer. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. On looking at the evidence provided, I am satisfied that these terms have been displayed clearly and sufficiently. The appellant states that they quickly went to McDonalds to use the toilet and the charge received is disproportionate. They say that they left their car at Starbucks and went to McDonalds for a short period of time before leaving. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments, the terms and conditions of the car park still apply. The signage in and around the area clearly states that the car park is for the use of customers only. By the appellant’s own admission, they left their car parked at Starbucks whilst attending McDonalds. In addition, the signage clearly states that there is no free stay permitted for McDonalds customers. It is the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the available signage on site and ensure that their parking complies with the applicable terms and conditions before leaving their vehicle unattended on site. The appellant says the parking charge is disproportionate. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. In this instance, the appellant has used the car park for reasons other than being a customer and as a result they have breached the terms and conditions. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accessor summary of reasons:

Quote

When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Starbucks customer parking only…60 minutes maximum free stay only…No free stay for McDonalds…If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100 Parking Charge.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has used the car park for other reasons than being a customer. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. On looking at the evidence provided, I am satisfied that these terms have been displayed clearly and sufficiently. The appellant states that they quickly went to McDonalds to use the toilet and the charge received is disproportionate. They say that they left their car at Starbucks and went to McDonalds for a short period of time before leaving. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments, the terms and conditions of the car park still apply. The signage in and around the area clearly states that the car park is for the use of customers only. By the appellant’s own admission, they left their car parked at Starbucks whilst attending McDonalds. In addition, the signage clearly states that there is no free stay permitted for McDonalds customers. It is the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the available signage on site and ensure that their parking complies with the applicable terms and conditions before leaving their vehicle unattended on site. The appellant says the parking charge is disproportionate. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge.

The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows:

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph
(2) “adequate notice” means notice given by:
(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
(b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which:
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
 

Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. In this instance, the appellant has used the car park for reasons other than being a customer and as a result they have breached the terms and conditions. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. 

There is also a petition against Stansted Southgate Car Park.
Might be worth to support it (although not sure if it will change anything): 

Petition · Starbucks and McDonald's: End Aggressive Parking Fines · Change.org

CHNG.IT

---

You MUST confirm your signature by clicking on the link sent to your email (check the spam folder) As widely reported in the media, customers to Starbucks and McDonald's Stansted Airport are being issued parking...

Agree, the TV programme made me laugh too. Thanks @lookinforinfo  
I'm not really sure why they hang at me specifically. I can't remember doing more than admitting myself as driver, that I went to McDonalds  and that my whole stay was 5 minutes total (which they already knew from CCTV.

SAR went off to MET on Saturday.

3 hours ago, dx100uk said:

thats why you WRITE a LETTER and send via Royal mail with free proof of posting to tell them NOT TO USE EMAIL

dx

 

I would really like to know this before I found this forum 

3 hours ago, dx100uk said:

who said do that.

 

Again, done before I found you guys ... 

2 hours ago, FTMDave said:

KEEPER LIABILITY  You've outed yourself as the driver.

GRACE PERIOD  You've admitted being there for the entirety of the 5-minute grace period, that you did enter one of the shops/restaurants and that you weren't a genuine customer but there just to use the toilet.

I have admitted all of that in my very first communication to MET Parking which was appeal through their website 
At that time it was my first and only parking ticket and I didn't know that these companies are soo bad...

I did request SAR from POPLA on 25th August 2023 (as I can't access my case there anymore) and they will respond within 35 days. I may do the same for MET.

I have only MET reply to appeal and my response to them on that:

05/10/2017

Dear Sir/Madam

It is not intuitive that Starbucks and McDonalds have completely different car parks. I was in rush to get quickly to toilet and haven’t noticed any signs saying I can’t use car park where I have parked.

Anyway, I could understand car park charge for staying longer but I’ve been out of my car JUST FOR 5 MINUTES to make a pee. 

I’m going appeal to POPLA as your notice is ridiculous.

All the information was entered on MET and POPLA websites and unfortunately I don't have copies of these.

MET Appeal reply.pdf

I also have the reply from DCB Legal LTD to message from my first post but I have replied to them immediately saying:

Hi,

Good Morning,

We thank you for your recent email.

We take the confidentiality of our matters very seriously and as a result, we ask you to answer the following security questions in full before we can correspond with you via email.

Please could you confirm:

• Your full name
• First line of your address
• Postcode

   

By responding to this email, you consent for us to use this email address for communication in relation to your case, this may contain information that is personal to you. When communicating by email, please remember that it may be ‘unsecure’. If at any time, you no longer wish for your personal information to be communicated by email, or you no longer have access to this mailbox, please notify us immediately.

Should you prefer to discuss this matter on the telephone, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0203 434 0437.

Defence submitted.
Now let's wait and see...
Thanks guys

Thanks @dx100uk and @FTMDave for your replies. I did post CPR 31.14 request to the DCB Legal. It will reach them on Monday / Tuesday.

I'm about to submit defence. On step 5 there are fields with phone number and email address to enter. Should I fill these in ?
I was reading somewhere else on this forum that I shouldn't provide email address to the Claimant but I'm not sure if this applies to MCOL Defence process.

Thanks

Thanks @dx100uk

I don't have much time left unfortunately  (my bad as I haven't found this helpful forum in time). I have only tomorrow and Monday  11th is last day.

DCB Legal LTD got their "Defendant Response" form.

Also, in my defence should I use your template ? Would it be enough ?

Also, you did say "Your name ONLY", Should i include my postal address ?
I assume they need to know address to which they should send documents ?  (may be a silly question)

Thanks @honeybee13

To add up to this, as far as I remember I've never agreed to pay within 28 days as stated in pt. 4 of Particulars of Claim

Which Court have you received the claim from ?

1. MCOL Northampton N1 ?

If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. (not the response page or AOS) - Attached 

Name of the Claimant :           Met Parking Services

Claimants Solicitors: DCB LEGAL LTD

Date of issue – 09 August 2023

Date for AOS -  28/08/2023 - Already submitted on 22/08/2023

Date to submit Defence - 11/09/2023

What is the claim for – 

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY
2. The PCN details are 12/09/2017, AB91145
3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PC(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

What is the value of the claim?

Amount Claimed - £255.08

court fees - £35.00

legal rep fees - £50.00

Total Amount - £340.08

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? (y/N - if Y state Date too) - Y - I have moved multiple times - last time was 3 years ago in August 2020

Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? Y/N + date and did you reply? - N

Claim Form - obscured.pdf

Hi there,

I was traversing through forum to search for any MoneyClaim Form regarding PCNs received at Southgate Car Park - Stansted but couldn't find anything.

I have received PCN around 26-27th September 2017 (attached) and since then I have received numerous of debt collector letters and finally have received MoneyClaim Form.

Unfortunately I have identified myself as the driver as I wasn't aware that this the worst thing to do in this case.

My situation is exactly the same as the others who have parked at this car park. I have parked at Starbucks and left to McDonalds as Starbucks was busy at that time.

I have appealed to Met Parking and obviously have received appeal rejection reply on 5th October 2017
POPLA appeal failed as well. I have received response from them on 24th October 2017 (I no longer have access to it but requested Subject Access Request under GDPR). Appeal was submitted afterwards the Met Parking response but I don't have exact dates as it was long time ago.

Since then I was ignoring all the debt collector post until I have received Claim Form. I have acknowledged it with intention to defence and it's nearly 28 days from the date of service (Due date to submit defence is 11th September 2023)

I did try to contact DCB Legal LTD  who did submit Claim Form with some defence but I'm pretty sure they won't respond before then:

Quote

Following your recent claim with Northampton moneyclaim online, I have acknowledged your claim form. At all times I have acknowledged I was the driver and corresponded accordingly.

Your claim relies on me breaching the Terms and Conditions of parking at the service station near Stansted Airport, of which I did not. It would appear that I am not the only driver to fall short of what could possibly be described as obtaining money by deception, and as such I am prepared to have my day in court. I provide a link to a recent newspaper article:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park

Before parking at this carpark, I also reviewed the Terms and Conditions, like other drivers have and noted from the T&C’s that I was entitled to park for an allowed period of time, of which I did. It is not reasonable, and I don’t think any judge would disagree, that I am obliged to walk around, what can only be described as one ‘service area’ to check to see if the different bays have different parking terms and conditions. It is clear that this would be unreasonable. Having checked the T&C’s that I did, which to my recollection was free parking for an hour. My stay was only around 5 minutes.

This is all documented, I have this acknowledged by your client and I have a picture of the sign / terms and conditions I read and had no reason to doubt.

As a gesture of goodwill, I am however prepared to make a settlement of the legal disbursements to date and end this matter.

I would be grateful for a reply before 11th September

Not sure if this will change anything.

Any help with this will be very much appreciated

Claim Form - obscured.pdf

original-pcn.pdf