Good morning, I hope that you are able to assist with a parking charge issue notice that I believe has been unfairly issued.

Apparently the reason for issue is that the driver left the premises (Code SPC) in that they walked 50 feet to a McDonalds on the same site. The signage is one of 4 that are used on the same site, all look the same except with different terms and conditions.

The "evidence" in this case is still images from a CCTV system.

The area referred to on the signage is not clear.

[ANPR camera capture]

please answer the following questions.

1 Date of the infringement 29th December 2017

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 7th February 2018

3 Date received Arrived in post yesterday AM 12th February 2018

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] NO

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] NO

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted (Retail site at Stansted airport shared between McDonalds, Starbucks and two other food venues)

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Mentions POPLA if appeal received within 28 days

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

None - First contact is wth the notice to keeper. I would be grateful of any advice that you could offer.

Regards

AFAIK, they're out of time, the NTK should have been received in January not February........no keeper liability.

AFAIK, they're out of time, the NTK should have been received in January not February........no keeper liability.

Thank you for the prompt response.

If this is the case then do I lodge an appeal using that as part of the grounds and asking that they do not contact the keeper further?

Hello there.

Please wait for further views before you decide whether to appeal. If you're new to this, you may not realise that things aren't as fair as you might think with parking cos. Each case is different, the specialists will advise you.

HB

Don't appeal, it will likely be declined and might identify the driver, something that is extremely unwise.

If this is the case then do I lodge an appeal using that as part of the grounds and asking that they do not contact the keeper further?

Nope, no appeal.

They'll just ignore you anyway.

So, you do absolutely nothing bar let MET waste all of their money on sending you increasingly desperate and threatening demands for payment.

Then they'll be paying a few quid to their pet debt collectors to write you some more pointless letters and finally they might stump up a few more beer tokens to get their tame "solicitors" to write to you and threaten you some more.

Unfortunately for MET, they have failed to meet the requirements as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4. Which allows them 14 days (from the day after the parking event) to write to the vehicle keeper. So, no keeper liability can possibly be established.

If they are stupid enough to take this all the way to a court.

1. They will lose. And

2. You counter claim against them as they have breached the Data Protection Act by obtaining and then processing your personal information without lawful reason.

This will then cost them even more money.

Following their loss at court, you then make formal written complains to the BPA Ltd, the DVLA and the Information Commissioner. Though the latter is the only one with any actual teeth, it'll give someone at MET a headache and will serve to teach them (yet another) valuable lesson.

Re-reading the OP, I am a little confused as to how an ANPR system would know that the driver had walked off site.

OP, could you scan in and upload anything that you've received from MET in PDF format please. Remove anything that identifies you, the vehicle registration and any PCN codes, Bar or QR codes, but leave everything else.

I just want to be certain as to what we're dealing with here.

Thank you.

I will upload the redacted PDF as soon as I can.

In the meantime for clarity the registered keeper has received the notice with a picture of the vehicle entering site via an ANPR / CCTV camera.

There is a link on the notice to log into a website where further pictures are stored, 15 of them in total.

It then appears that a separate CCTV system shows the driver parking in an unmarked bay, then leaving the vehicle and walking towards McDonalds (next door whilst still on the same site) and after a short time in reverse until the driver leaves the site.

There is only one entrance and exit to "the site" so one would presume leaving it (which they state is the issue) would be to walk away from the vehicle to a neighbouring hotel / bar / shop / store. It is literally 10 metres from the car park bay to McDonalds, all of which is run by MET parking but I now see "the site" has three separate areas all of which have different conditions but very confusing signage.

I hope that this gives a little more clarity.

I've looked at the site on Google Streetnosey and I assume that we're talking about the one with McDonalds (nearest the entrance) then Starbucks and then some other shop shoved in the carpark in a portacabin

If so, I absolutely agree with you that the signage looks like someone in the Met 'signs' department has gone potty!

"The Site" as any reasonable person would presume, is the whole of the area. If you'd nipped round to the BP garage then yes, you've left "the site", but as Starbucks don't sell Big Mac's, it would be unreasonable to expect a driver to move the car from one area of a single car park to another to satisfy some sort of daft term on a sign just so that they could eat.

MET Parking know this, but they live in the hope that 'normal' people don't cotton on to the con and just pay up without asking any awkward questions or making life difficult for them.

.

If they've used CCTV to monitor the drivers movements throughout the site then apart from having far too much time on their hands, they're way outside of the time allowed by POFA to issue a NtK. The point I was trying to make is that if there is some muppet from MET Parking on site that has issued one of these "magical disappearing windscreen tickets" then they might be in time to issue the NtK, but from what you say, that does sound doubtful.

It's all going to hinge on exactly what it says on the NtK.

I share Dragon Fly's confusion.

If you are in a retail park then you must surely have to leave your car to visit the stores.

I know McDonalds have drive throughs but how could you make a visit to the loo there for instance without leaving your car?

Also the length of time between the "offence" and the ticket would suggest that there was a ticket attached to the windscreen at the time.

It might be worthwhile to write to the DVLA to complain about them sending your details on an ANPR capture more than 30 days after the event. Explain that the NTK was dated the 7th February along with 15 or so ANPR photographs.

Remind them that under POFA there is only a short window within which Parking Companies can request keeper details and if this was an ANPR request the DVLA has failed to adhere to the POFA principles.

And that would put them in breach of the Government guidelines on release of information since its data file specifically states under the Data Protection Act section that DVLA will only release information when it is lawful and fair to do so.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/630173/inf266-release-of-information-from-dvlas-registers.pdf

Thank you all for your help so far.

You are correct it is the one near to the airport, so far I have counted four MET parking signs all with differing wording within 20 yds of each other.

Hopefully I have attached the documents correctly, this is all I have had received in relation to this.

There is a link on the front page to a website where I can view 15 pictures of the driver allowing a child to exit the vehicle and walk towards McDonalds and then back.

On none of those pictures do you ever see any ticket attached to the vehicle.

Both McDonalds and Starbucks are next to each other, only separated via a drive through.

MET Parking Southgate Park Stansted Front.pdf

MET Parking Southgate Park Stansted Rear.pdf

Well, as there's not been a windscreen ticket then they must be relying on ANPR. So they've not got a cat in hells chance of this going any further (other than all the 'junk mail' that you're going to get from them and their pet snakes).

Just sit back and smile as you watch them waste their money trying to get you to pay

There is an article on Met parking and MacDonalds in today's Daily Mail-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707810/Menace-new-parking-cowboys-Drivers-fined-100-overstaying-minutes-fast-food-chains-shops.html

One spokesman in the article stated that while Met do not have attendants at their car parks they do use mobile attendants who travel round issuing tickets.

So it could be that Met are using the old disappearing ticket sc@m as well as the left premises Sc@m when they have no pictures of you not on the premises.

So do complain to DVLA and see if they were told it was a windscreen ticket -and show your photo with no ticket attached.

Ask them what they are going to do bearing in mind that many MPs have complained about the conduct of the DVLA with reference to the new private members bill going through Parliament about Private Parking companies.

Your point is that either the DVLA sent your details well after the POFA time limit if it were an ANPR catch and thus a breach of the Data Protection Act. Or it was a windscreen ticket catch where you received no ticket and none showing on their photographs. Thus a possible fraud and the DVLA have already withdrawn the Met's facility to be provided with keeper details back in 2012 for a while so they know they are not saints.

That silly missive is hilarious, ''leaving the site''??? Are you serious? So once on there you can never leave?

There is an article on Met parking and MacDonalds in today's Daily Mail

Today's? That article is from 2014

Although I agree with the rest of your post

so did you get a ticket slapped on the vehicle?

if so then the NTK is in the correct time frame but as aready said, there is a commom practice where they attach a random bit of paper to the car, photograph it and then remove it so when they send out the NTK there is no discount period and you will have forgotten all the details of the day so wont have receipts to challenge them.

As private parking is being discussed in parliament this is one where a copy of any letter you send to MET should be sent to your MP

before you do respond tell us about any ticket received at the time and we will help you write a letter that rips into them.

as for the claim of a breach,

that is a legal nonsense and the photographic evidence is likewise utter cobblers and as already said proof that NO ticket was issued at the time.

Thank you again.

Like I say driver states there was no ticket received at the time, the CCTV capture and the 15 images MET have provided would show any ticket being attached to the vehicle as there was only the windscreen and passenger side available as driver had to park against an obstruction. The CCTV and images offer a clear view of the vehicle.

Would there not be mention on the NTK that a ticket was already fixed to the vehicle if they were going to try to play silly beggars? This NTK offers discount if paid within 14 days, therefore is it not clearly the first contact MET have had with the keeper?

Could I just confirm what is the best course of action?

1. Ignore the request and any other contact

2. Appeal on the basis of the poor, misleading and confusing signage and NTK not being served on time and wait for the POPLA appeal.

3. Write to them after the 28 days explaining that they have not served the NTK in time, therefore the keeper does not have to name the driver and not to make contact further?

Thanks again all for your help with this.

Well, no ticket on the windscreen means that it was ANPR and they were out of time to form keeper liability. They can only go after the driver, and as they don't know the identity of the driver...

I'd completely ignore them and let them do all the chasing and allow them to waste their money.

As I said, you'll get lots of 'threatening' letters from DCA's and "solicitors" full of 'if', 'may', 'might' etc, but there's absolutely nothing they can do to you as keeper. And if they're stupid enough to try and take this to court, it'll be a very easy win for you and a nice day out at their expense

Today's? That article is from 2014

 

Although I agree with the rest of your post

You got me bang to rights guv'nor-I'll come quietly. In fairness Tuesdays date was at the top of the page where you would normally expect to see the date on a newspaper-this time it was a weather report.

You have to wonder at the stupidity of these companies when they know Parliament is looking at them. Why would they want to confirm that they are crooks at this time.

Pure greed or we must make money before we are banned like clamping.

Greed, stupidity, whatever. It also raises big questions about what they told the ICO they use their cameras for.

They wont have planning permission for them either as the council would have to consider the use of the cameras as part of that planning decision and spying on individuals when they claim they are for car park management would be a breach of planning so rendering any contract void.

What on earth do these bandits think about when they send these demands out? They can surely only knbow they are wrong and thus be committing or attempting fraud.

More points to let your MP know when you do write.....

Thanks everyone.

If there’s further contact I will upload to this post!

Hi, update from me,

I contacted Starbucks who are well aware of the issues, the manager there contacted Met and the ticket was cancelled.

Either pop up there, call them, they are extremely understanding of the issue

Also Met may argue that McDonalds is not part of Southgate Park, unfortunately their website advertises this branch with that address.

There is one entrance in and out, the signage is ridiculous

posts moved to your own thread

title updated

Wellsy... I am going through the exact same situation as you describe... same car park, MET etc etc.

What happened with your dealings with MET? It might be helpful to know.

Regards