Free Traffic Legal Advice

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: L8KF5Y6M

BETWEEN:

MET Parking Services Ltd

Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

2. The Defendant was not the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking contravention.

3. The Defendant sold the vehicle in question in or around April 2023, approximately two months prior to the alleged incident on 16 June 2023. The vehicle was sold on the understanding that it was to be scrapped, as it was unroadworthy and had no valid MOT.

4. The Defendant, in error, provided the buyer with the full V5C document (logbook) and was unaware that the new keeper failed to notify the DVLA of the change of ownership. The Defendant had no reason to believe the vehicle would be repaired and returned to use on public or private land.

5. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and submits that they cannot be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, Schedule 4. To invoke keeper liability, the Claimant must demonstrate that the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time of the incident and must fully comply with POFA requirements, including but not limited to the issue of compliant notices.

6. The alleged contravention took place at a car park located at Southgate Park, which is within the boundaries of Stansted Airport. The Defendant has evidential proof that the location falls under statutory control due to the airport byelaws. Under POFA 2012, land subject to statutory control is not “relevant land,” and therefore the Claimant cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

7. The Claimant has demonstrated a pattern of disregarding the legal distinction that land under statutory control, including land within the boundaries of airports such as Stansted, cannot be considered “relevant land.” The Claimant incorrectly asserts that private land is relevant land under POFA, which is a misrepresentation of the law.

8. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are vague and do not comply with CPR 16.4 or Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3–7.5. Specifically:

(a) The PoC do not detail the contract allegedly breached or include a copy of the terms and conditions;

(b) The PoC do not specify the exact wording of the clauses of the alleged contract;

(c) The PoC fail to provide sufficient details about the alleged breach, including the duration of the alleged overstay, the exact times, or how the parking charge was calculated;

(d) The PoC do not clarify whether the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the driver or the keeper, nor provide evidence of such status.

9. The Defendant submits that no cause of action exists against them as they were not the keeper, driver, or in possession of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.

10. The Defendant also denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or to any statutory interest. The claimed amounts are excessive and include disproportionate fees and costs that do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss or reflect the terms of any alleged contract.

11. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this claim. The Claimant is well aware, or ought to be aware, that:

(a) The Defendant cannot be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 because the location in question, being within the boundaries of Stansted Airport, is not “relevant land”; and

(b) The Defendant was neither the driver nor the keeper at the time of the alleged contravention.

12. Furthermore, the Defendant draws attention to the possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance, which is not uncommon in claims from this industry that have been issued by the claimants bulk litigation solicitor. While CPR r.38.6 typically exempts small claims from costs liability after discontinuance (r.38.6(3)), the White Book confirms that this exemption does not apply where the party has acted unreasonably. Specifically, r.27.14(2)(g) allows for costs to be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably.

13. In this case, the Claimant has behaved unreasonably by pursuing a claim in which liability under PoFA 2012 is impossible due to the location being non-relevant land and by attempting to hold the keeper liable despite the lack of any lawful basis to do so. Should a Notice of Discontinuance be served late in this process, the Defendant respectfully submits that the court should make an order for the Defendant's costs to be reimbursed.

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.

Signed:


Date: