Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Hi, my first post and need some legal type wording to respond to the fourth letter from MET.
In Feb I visited McDonalds Billingsgate London for a coffee and send a few email on my Blackberry. I was there around 20min. I left and went away but returned later that morning for a burger and coffee when I stayed around half an hour. Neither time did I leave the premisis and both times I purchased goods from McDonalds.
Two weeks later my company (I drive a company car) received a £50 parking fine as I had returned to the restaurant car park twice within a 90min period.
I owned up as the driver but refused to pay as i had not left my car in the car park for any time other than when consuming McDonalds products.
I did not see the sign which I now think is a little too high but I would bnever even look for one when this was clearly a McDonalds owned carpark and I was there only to purchase goods from them.
I have never had parking fine or any motoring offence in 30 years of professional driving in excess of 30000 mile a year.
I have now had four letters fron MET advising that the cntravention occured and the fine is upheld. Each time I have written explaining the above and that as I do not consider I have committed any offence I will not pay and that I will be happy to defend my case in court.
Today I have received another letter asking if i have legal representation in the matter and if so supply an address for service of documents. The letter also threatens me with additional costs, debt recovery agent and/or court proceedings.
I am prepared to go to court over this but would like to ensure this happens before they send debt recovery agents.
I now feel this letter is intimidating and even feel harassed into paying something my principal says I should not be paying.
Could anyone give me a legal view please.
I am not trying to get free legal advice as I would be prepared to pay for it rather than pay these people one penny.
best to scan the letters from MET, scrub out your personal details and post them up here.
I seem to recall that MET normally breaks lots of laws in its letters.
pictures of the signs in the car park would also help a great deal.
if they send some 'debt agent' before any court action then just tell them to get lost - they are powerless. but log the visit - and better yet record it. IF it happens.
best to scan the letters from MET, scrub out your personal details and post them up here.
I seem to recall that MET normally breaks lots of laws in its letters.
pictures of the signs in the car park would also help a great deal.
if they send some 'debt agent' before any court action then just tell them to get lost - they are powerless. but log the visit - and better yet record it. IF it happens.
best to scan the letters from MET, scrub out your personal details and post them up here.
I seem to recall that MET normally breaks lots of laws in its letters.
pictures of the signs in the car park would also help a great deal.
if they send some 'debt agent' before any court action then just tell them to get lost - they are powerless. but log the visit - and better yet record it. IF it happens.
Hi lamma I have loaded a scan of the letter
but I am too new to be able to display it?
This is a photo of the signage in the car park.
Whilst it doesnt show how high or large. I took this standing beside it and I am 6ft, you can see I am still below the height of the sign and my camera is needing to point up.
regardless of the signage, regardless of anything they say, it's unenforceable.
As you have a company car, it may be hard to say you wasn't driving it, as the company will probably have to kept records of who is driving it at all times.
But also its a penalty charge which they cannot enforce it.
Looking at the letter they have sent you they are misrepresenting the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004 in their terminology.
Lets get it straight.
A notice to owner is issued by a council operating a decriminalised parking enforcement scheme. The NTO is issued after a Penalty Charge Notice (pcn) is issued for a contravention of the parking regulations.
The NTO is issued to the person appearing to be the owner to the issuing council (normally the registered keeper).
The parking charge Notice is not a Penalty Charge Notice. It is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
Have a read of the Private Parking Charges Guide in the stickies section. This will explain the legalities of the situation.
Also have a read of the template letters what to do if you wrote first.
In my view this letter is a breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act
Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:
harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
You should report them to trading standards and the Office of Fair Trading.
You might want to look at reporting them for fraud. If you have any other paper work post that up with your details obscured so we can see that as well.
They can send debt recovery agents to your home but they have as much power to enforce the debt as you or I do. In other words very little. You can ask them to leave as soon as they show up and get the police to assist if they refuse.
They cannot add the debt recovery costs on to the original amount, although they will try. This would be stripped off by a court.
Finally these letters are designed to threaten and intimidate. Stand up to these bully boys and they will move on to easier targets.
If you have any questions then post back. There are plenty of people on these forums ready willing and able to help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I note that MET, on their website, claim to be members of the BPA [trade body of the ticketers]
The following is purportedly from the BPA, issued as advice to their members, advising them of the implications of the 2008 Consumer regulations act.
2. Keeper liability and Escalation of excess fees 2.1 The Trading Standards Office has also drawn our attention to the new Consumer Protection Regulations 2008 that came into effect on 26 May of this year. Of particular note is Section 7 which deals with aggressive and unfair trading practices: 7.1 A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all its features and circumstances –
a) it significantly impairs or it is likely to significantly impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and
b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.
7.2 In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of –
a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;
b) the use of threatening, abusive language or behaviour; as to impair the consumer’s judgement, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;
d) any onerous or disproportionate contractual barrier imposed by the trader where the consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights t terminate a contract or to switch to another product or anther trader; and
e) any threat to take any action which cannot be legally taken.
7.3 In this regulation –
a) ‘Coercion’ includes the use of physical force; and
b) ‘undue influence’ means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision. 2.2 Whilst this is a new and untried regulation, members should be aware that sending a demand for payment to the vehicle keeper (as opposed to the driver) - without making it clear that the liability is with the driver – would fit within this regulation. Members should also be aware of the methodology used in the escalation of excess parking fees, ensuring that this escalation cannot be considered to be an ‘aggressive practice’.
2.3 Members should therefore ensure that – for the time being – all correspondence with the vehicle keeper makes it clear that the contractual liability lies with the driver who parked inappropriately. They should also have an awareness of the escalation of their excess parking fees, and ensure that they cannot be construed as ‘aggressive’ or ‘unfair’.
It would certainly appear that MET are ignoring their own trade association.
Complaints to OFT & local trading standard should be considered.
Hi All
Just got back from a few days holiday and found the following on the doormat.
I find this a little intimmidating and I am worried that they may send debt collectors when I am not in debt as it is an unproven offence.
Are they able to send debt collectors? ImageShack - Hosting :: img002axv7.jpg
Hi All
Just got back from a few days holiday and found the following on the doormat.
I find this a little intimmidating and I am worried that they may send debt collectors when I am not in debt as it is an unproven offence.
Are they able to send debt collectors? ImageShack - Hosting :: img002axv7.jpg
Can they send debt collectors? - Yes
Do you have to pay them? - NO
Do they have any legal powers? - Even more NOs
Should you be worried? - Absolutley not!
In that latest Notice to Owner they have sent you, they clearly state "As the registered owner, keeper or hirer it is your legal responsibility to make payment" This is a total lie and, I am sure, would be considered as a fraudulent statement and/or attempt to obtain monies by deception by any court, so they have not a leg to stand on as far as I can see legally (if they ever had one in the first place)!
Don't worry. It's a [problem] and they know that. They try and scare you so you'll be tricked into paying.
• do not pay
• do not contact them
• ignore any letters you receive, no matter how threatening
• they will go away after 4 or 5 letters
• don't pay any attention to their lies about CCJs, court costs, owner liability etc. They are all pure fabrication
• they will not take you to court
• debt collectors are equally powerless.They'll just take over the letter writing and then leave you alone. The debt collectors are often the parking company under a different guise. All part of the [problem].
Don't worry and get on with your life. Nothing will happen if you ignore them.
Hi All
I am taking your advice by ignoring the letters.
The latest of which came today and is now £125.
They are threatening me that the debt collectors may take me to court to recover the debt. How can they do that when by their own words that "the vehicle was allegedly involved in the following parking contravention"
If MET took me to court and I was proved to have committed an offence I would pay up but how can I be taken to court to recover an alledged debt?
PCN from MET Parking Services
as I had returned to the restaurant car park twice within a 90min period.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by lamma
