DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121551--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 12, 2026, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - all noted.
But we're using those arguments to draw attention away from the
major mistakes in the revised POC.
#Post#: 121552--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 12, 2026, 3:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Krispy Kreme Defence.
This needs to be submitted as close to the deadline as possible.
But make sure that deadline is worked out correctly.
I would submit on the previous day to the deadline.
1. That I am the individual named in this Claim.
2. That liability for the claim is denied and that no debt is
owed by myself to the Claimant.
3. That, although the Claimant's revised Particulars of Claim
(POC) are more detailed than the previous version, the new POC
remain inaccurate, lack specifics and fails to disclose how they
believe the terms and conditions of the alleged contract were
breached.
4. That, after taking legal guidance, I have been advised that
it is not the job of the Defendant to help the Claimant get
their Claim in order.
5. I will therefore (in light of my two previous points) be
responding only to the Claimant's pleaded claim as set out in
their amended POC.
6. That the Claimant specifies that they are pursuing me as the
Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
7. That the Claimant is using Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA) in order to establish what is known as 'keeper liability'
under PoFA.
8. That I believe that PoFA keeper liability is not available to
the Claimant in the manner which they are claiming since they
are unable to meet the strict criteria under which PoFA would
make me the liable party.
9. That I believe that the Claimant is attempting to recover a
sum far greater than the legislation allows under PoFA.
10 That PoFA specifically states that, under 'keeper liability'
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) that, "the creditor will (if
all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have
the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as
remains unpaid"
11. That the PoFA explanatory notes (contained within the Act)
specifies at Note 221;
Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover
unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle
if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are
satisfied.
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.
The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle
keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen
before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain
circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle
(paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the
keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid
parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the
driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).
12. That Note 221 makes two relevant points, namely; that the
registered keeper cannot be pursued when driver details have
been provided and that the creditor (Claimant) cannot make a
claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid
charges at the time the NtK was actually issued.
13. That the Claimant therefore appears to be ignoring the
requirements of the legislation on which they appear to be
reliant since their 'claim' is more than double the amount which
the legislation says can be recovered.
14. That I believe that I have never contravened any of the
terms or conditions at the specified location in the manner
which the POC loosely suggests.
15. That liability for the Claim is therefore denied.
#Post#: 121558--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 12, 2026, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there a reason none of these points mention that the
defendant was not the registered keeper? This seems like a very
salient point, but as far as I can tell, neither the original
defence nor this revised one make mention of it.
It isn't the defendant's job to get the Claimant's claim in
order, but it is their job to respond to each of the claims
made. One of those claims is that the Defendant was the
registered keeper.
#Post#: 121560--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 12, 2026, 4:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Defence point 8 does cover this.
But we are trying to avoid a situation where the Claimant
realises their mistake and attempts to pursue the OP as the
driver.
#Post#: 121754--------------------------------------------------
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: June 14, 2026, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your help, I will submit all those points
#Post#: 121758--------------------------------------------------
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: June 14, 2026, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have put all of your points into a letter format, as below. Do
I need the last paragraph in point 11 which refers to stolen
vehicles? Do I need to add anything else to make it compliant
with court format?
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES
CLAIM NUMBER: XXXX
BETWEEN
MET PARKING SERVICES (Claimant)
and
XXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
1.
2.
claimed, and denies that any debt is owed by myself to the
Claimant for the reasons stated below.
3.
are more detailed than the previous version, the new POC do not
comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4. The POC remain
inaccurate, lack specifics and fail to disclose how they believe
the terms and conditions of the alleged contract were breached.
The Claimant is required to provide a concise statement of facts
relied upon and the Court is invited to strike out the claim for
this reason, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4.
not the job of the Defendant to help the Claimant get their
Claim in order.
5.
responding only to the Claimant's pleaded claim as set out in
their amended POC.
6.
Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
7.
in order to establish what is known as 'keeper liability' under
PoFA.
8.
Claimant in the manner which they are claiming since they are
unable to meet the strict criteria under which PoFA would make
me the liable party.
9.
far greater than the legislation allows under PoFA.
10.
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) that, "the creditor will (if all
the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the
right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as
remains unpaid"
11. The PoFA explanatory notes (contained within the Act)
specifies at Note 221;
Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover
unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle
if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are
satisfied.
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.
The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle
keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen
before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain
circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle
(paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the
keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid
parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the
driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).
12.
registered keeper cannot be pursued when driver details have
been provided and that the creditor (Claimant) cannot make a
claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid
charges at the time the Notice to Keeper was actually issued.
13.
requirements of the legislation on which they appear to be
reliant since their 'claim' is more than double the amount which
the legislation says can be recovered.
14.
conditions at the specified location in the manner which the POC
loosely suggests.
15.
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:
.....................................................
.......... ...........
(Defendant)
Address for Service of Documents:
#Post#: 121784--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 15, 2026, 1:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks good to me.
Remember that you are a Litigant In Person (LIP) so the Court
are unlikely to sanction minor formatting errors etc so don't
worry about things like that at this stage.
We'll now have to sit and wait.
#Post#: 121786--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 15, 2026, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you're submitting via MCOL make sure it fits.
If it doesn't you can chop the title etc. Before your numbered
defence points.
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 8
DIR Previous Page