Jump to content

Rodney Trotter490

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rodney Trotter490

  1. On 06/04/2020 at 12:16, Rodney Trotter490 said:



    It says you have to enter your notice reference and vehicle VRN to start your appeal process, I have looked at the various MET web pages and can't find /see a route to looking at the photographs or am I missing something?

    PCN_redacted with vehicle (part redacted).pdf 1.04 MB · 4 downloads

    Apologies Dx for quoting you.


    I didn't want to start the appeals process so didn't enter the info.  MET seem to entice you to appeal, why?  For use as evidence against the defendant?



  2. Looking and Brassnecked,


    Thank you for your response and I haven't challenged the NTK and what does tolchocked mean?


    I look forward to the next few months and for info a NTD wasn't issued or received by the driver at the time of the alleged breech.


    The NTK was written to imply POFA but didn't reference it or quote POFA schedule 4.  Which again means this PPC relies on implied threats to gain payment rather than actual  basis in law and also relies on the keeper saying who the driver is and then that person can face court to recover reasonable costs for the next 6 years.  After reading other posters account of defending the claim it is absolutely shocking that PPCs imply that you don't have a defense and should cough up because you are going to loose... 





  3. Hi all,


    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 leaser,

    the renter or

    the lenders? 

    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.


    Regards again







  4. 15 minutes ago, johnjordan said:

    Ah, I looked this site up on Google and came across this:



    It seems the free parking time was reduced from 2 hours down to 1 hour, thus the OP parked for 1 hour 23 minutes which would have incurred a fee for the extra 23 minutes which he/she didn't pay. The mention of 120 minutes maximum parking is not the length of time you are given for free, it's the longest you are allowed to stay there whether you pay or not.


    I still can't see where the issue of leaving the car park arises as there is no mention of that on the ticket.

    120 mins is 2 hours but 1h:23m:23s is only 83 minutes and 23 seconds so well under 120 minutes (2 hours)

  5. The contravention reason states 'the maximum period allowed at this site is 120 minutes. However even if it was an hour the reason would have been exceeding the payed for period!


    He she hadn't so what was the reason for the £100.00 charge?  You don't pay for the contractors mistakes, they can't charge you for their error, they may try...



  6. I am a novice with PCNs too but its more what the 'contravention reason' doesn't say. 

    The two hours free parking was only if he /she remained on the premises, by leaving the OP breached a condition that is more favorable to the PPC i.e. the OP should have paid to park before leaving the premises. 


    If you are not aware of this condition then how can you be in breach of contract? 

    It is for VCS to prove and they rely on signage to  say you have accepted the and will abide by the T&Cs and if not charge you £100.00 or 60% of it if you pay up with 14 days.


    A contract is - Offer (you can park you car here), Acceptance of terms (to park your car) and then consideration if you want to enter into the contract and park actually park your car.


    The problem is these PPC are convincing and rely on people paying, if the OP had been approached and been told that leaving the premises on foot would incur a charge of £100.00,  would they have left with their car or paid say £4.00 to park for the two hours or just gone on foot without paying the £4.00?


    I hope that helps, it the latest form of clamping.



  7. @dx100uk  Occupants left Southgate Park Premises, that is all I will say and read in to it what you will.


    Apologies if I have offended you. 

    I would prefer to only say what was on the NTK. 

    However, this is the first parking charge notice I have received in a very long time, the first one was paid as overstayed the free time allowed, this was issued about 20 years ago in an Aldi's store in Buxton, Derbyshire.



  8. 5 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

    Well, looking at your answer 2., they're out of time by some margin.



    That is what I thought, so should I state the inconsistencies to MET Parking Services Ltd in issuing a NTK according to POFA or just file and wait it out.  In the mean time I will put in a FOI request to the DVLA and ask who had reasonable cause under Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 to be given the keepers details.  And when they asked for and where given the keepers details.



  9. Silver fox questionnaire,


    No notice to driver attached to vehicle or given to the person believed to be in charge of the vehicle, i.e. as the keeper I wasn't made aware that a Parking Charge notice to driver was issued at the time of the infringement.  The notice to keeper doesn't say a notice to driver was issued and so I presume one wasn't,  according to POFA (schedule 4) that nugget of info should have been included if a PCN was issued at time of infringement the NTK should re-iterate that information.


    For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]


    please answer the following questions.


    1 Date of the infringement

    5 Feb 20


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

    30 March 20


    3 Date received

    2 April 20

    4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]



    5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

    Yes, one image superimposed (redacted from upload) on to the NTK, more images are available if I lodge an appeal.


    6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]


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


    7 Who is the parking company?

    MET Parking services Ltd

    8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

    Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

    For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

    Internal followed by POPLA as a member of BPA


    No other correspondence received








  10. Hi all,


    Just received a notice well outside the 14 days required by POFA, 

    no drivers notice fixed to vehicle or handed to driver and the alleged breech of contract (leaving premises without payment of parking).   

    occurred over 54 days ago, but magically under the 56 days. 


    The PPC doesn't mention  POFA specifically in the notice but is implied because it is a notice to keeper. 

     I am aware of that I am under no obligation to say who the driver was. 


     What advice is current as initially I was going to ignore but now think I should challenge  due to notice being served after 14 days for keepers liability.


    Also, does anyone have the format to request from the DVLA when and who requested the registered details of  the keeper?


    The notice to keeper was addressed to the business and not a named individual.


    Thanks in advanced. 

  • Create New...