DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95091--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: October 21, 2025, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've redacted personal details and uploaded the claim form and
PoC in this dropbox link below:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y0x7fz9n8n02lvhf5rpwd/claim-form-201025.pdf?rlkey=p097jznpg8yl116tysgs4ruyl&st=a11z84wi&dl=0
Thanks for all your help
#Post#: 95092--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: October 21, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The car is no longer in existence as it was written off shortly
after and I was never the registered keeper. Just thought I'd
point this out in case it is relevant.
#Post#: 95097--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: October 21, 2025, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not relevant what the status of the vehicle is now. With an
issue date of 15th October you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd
November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 17th November to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the
instructions in this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts);
>
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out materially similar claims of their own initiative for
failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where
the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they
do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent case management).
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 95112--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 22, 2025, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Although the NTK is no longer visible, I assume it was issued
based upon ANPR cameras.
Therefore the NTK was sent to the person whose details were held
by DVLA on their register of keepers.
But you now say: I was never the registered keeper
Then how did you receive a Notice to Keeper in your name in the
first place?
#Post#: 95348--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: October 23, 2025, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My husband was the registered keeper, he received the letter
#Post#: 95352--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: October 23, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to try and prevent a huge FUBAR here, in whose name has the
claim been filed? We know that the NtK will have been sent to
the keeper. The driver, if different from the Keeper, cannot
just take over the PCN. If the Keeper wants to throw the driver
under the proverbial bus, then all the have to do is give MET
the drivers details and that is the end of the matter as far as
they are concerned.
We never advise anyone to do that. As the Keeper, with the
driver remaining unidentified, there are more protections
available.
So, at any point in this process, gas the driver been
identified? If not, then everything to now will have been in the
Keepers name. It is the Keeper who is defending the claim. If
you were the driver and want to take responsibility for this, it
is far too late now. Whilst you can do all the work and even
sign any documents as your husband (only need to the full name
to electronically sign a document) as him. You cannot do ti "on
behalf" of him.
As I stated a ling time back, this will never actually reach a
hearing as DCB Legal will issue a Notice of Discontinuance
(N279) before the trial fee has to be paid.
So, in whose name is the claim?
#Post#: 95372--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: October 24, 2025, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The claim is in my name as my husband told MET that I was the
driver, which is true.
We both know now he shouldn't have done this but we weren't sure
what to do at the time and we understood they can still pursue
the keeper in the event they weren't told who the driver was
#Post#: 95416--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: October 24, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So you are going through the process and having filed your
defence, you are now waiting for a response
acknowledgingnreceitp of your defence.
It would be worthwhile you searching through the forum for any
of the countless other DCB Legal issued claims to see what
happens next and when
#Post#: 98384--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: November 16, 2025, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I submitted the defence as stated in your post of 21st October
and have received an acknowledgement from the CNBC. I have also
received an email from MET parking with all the evidence they
have - which is basically the copies of the original PCN and my
responses, copy of the POPLA appeal and refusal and photos of
the car (but the photos are all dark and just show the
registration number - there is no evidence of where the car was
parked but the photos are date stamped).
As MET parking has now responded, do I now need to reply to this
and submit another defence to the court (i.e. stating my reasons
why I believe the PCN was issued incorrectly?
Thanks
#Post#: 98464--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: November 17, 2025, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Has the claim been allocated to your local county court yet? Is
what you've received part of a Witness Statement (WS) from MET?
I doubt it.
You will have no more direct contact with MET once the claim was
issued. You will only be dealing with DCB Legal.
The normal steps in the process are exchange of N180 DQs to the
court, a waste of time mediation call, transfer to your local
court, directions from the judge with deadlines and eventually,
just before their deadline to pay the £27 trial fee,
discontinuation.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page