Thank you for the advice so far and for info and for anyone else that may be affected by this issue I can attach the results of a number of Land registry requests for post code CM22 1PY If the site team think it is okay to do so.
In short the land in question is referred to as plot 4b.
The 'claimant' (I know a Letter of Claim hasn't been sent yet) ascertains the driver had been offered parking,
the driver accepted the offer to park and then both parties made consideration to exchange items of value i.e. a parking space for £4.00 (in accordance with the terms offered by the PPC on behalf of parties with an interest in the land (premises).
The driver didn't pay the £4.00 as was unaware that this was a term and walked from plot 4b to plot 4a (interconnected, with no physical barrier but with lots and lots of new looking signage ( I paid a visit to the car park after I received the NTK).
Plot 4b (occupied by a carpark, Starbucks and two other food vendors) registered owner is Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited, lenders being Santander UK PLC and David Noble.
Plot 4a (occupied by McDonald's and car park) registered owner is David Noble (care of Tabacon Ltd which is now Tabacon Management Limited). Companies House references are 06408287 and 04391124 respectively and both have the same registered address .
I am not reading too much into the registered owners, in that a registered company has it own unique legal identity.
Jamie Noble, a director of both companies and has significant control in both companies 75% but less than 100% and 25% but less than 50% (Tabacon Management and Tabacon Stansted 2 respectively).
Their is also a deed of assignment for rental income created by Tabacon 2 Stansted 2 Ltd and dated February 2012 (plot 4b) with Santander UK PLC (mortgage provider) being the beneficiary (lenders are Santander and David Noble).
It is a tangled web of long and shorter term leases, deeds, different companies etc.
The point I am trying to make and will take advice on is, who has suffered loss /damages and could sue for recovery of those losses /damages?
The PPC as the creditor,
the land owner,
the renter or
Who maintains the car parks?
Who gets the £4.00 that the PPC says should have been paid?
Santander UK PLC have a deed to receive all the rental income from plot 4b because (I presume) Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd took out a mortgage on the plot and agreed to give Santander the rental income (very tax efficient as a income turns into a creditor and Tabacon 2 have some cash to spend on something else (I think) and all perfectly acceptable to HMRC ).
It would be interesting to read the contract that allows MET parking services to act as a creditor for the party or parties that have a legal interest in the land and therefore have suffered loss because of an alleged breech of contract between the driver and land owner.
The PPC can not make a loss and so couldn't sue for damages but can recover reasonable cost in 'managing' the Car Park, is that correct? Is a £100.00 PCN reasonable?
It seems strange that a business that relies on drivers breaching a contract in order to make a profit hasn't been investigated more by the powers that be.
A business that in 2019 (companies house 05468096) showed Net assets of £2,221,920 that included a healthy cash in hand balance of £427,489 and debtors of £2,050,508.
They are clampers in another guise and rely on people paying £100.00 or £60.00 (if paid within 14 days) the only difference is they can not hold your car to ransom but they can hold the keeper liable for payment of the PCN if NTK is issued within 14 days (which it wasn't, so no keeper liability).
A business that relies loosely on civil law to intimidate and get payment quickly but gains little more by going to court other than the satisfaction of a possible win /empiric victory that can only create a persuasive precedent and not a binding precedent
I recently had to prove as the claimant a case of statutory nuisance of odor with the standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt (DJ decisions, as I wanted 'on balance of probability', the respondent of course agreed with the judge).
I self represented and the decision was that the odor did come from the facility and was considered by the court as unreasonable and substantial, therefore a statutory nuisance. However the DJ couldn't decide if it was because of a defect in design /construction of the building or it was due to the operator of the facility.
I had taken the owner to court not the operator under Section 82 of the EPA. I didn't have an expert witness and that is what let me down, in hind-sight, I would have got one but in the end the DJ would have only issued an abatement order and so didn't think it was justified.
Had my County Council sweating for a bit and on the bright side, the DJ made some made persuasive precedents for any future proceedings (heard in a Magistrate's Court) against the operator (and they know it). I am persistent when I need to be and as the keeper of the vehicle and without keeper liability in play, I am already starting to think about a defense as a keeper!
I have read an example of a PPC's claim to a breech of contract from a witness statement and it was interesting that the writer considered the respondent (defendant) as being the driver or the keeper which means if all PPCs follow a set or similar format for statements to claim breech of contract
as in the example I read they were trying to show the court that the keeper and driver were one of the same even though they couldn't prove it.
Why would the court take the claimants word on a augment that can be not proved under cross examination.