Jump to content

MET ANPR PCN - Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 367 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Met usually use ANPR and get the timings massively wrong so they will be timed out.

they must have used CCTV to watch the vehicle occupants "leave" and this is probably a breach of the GDPR as it wont be one of the specified reasons on their licence to spy on people so will breach protocols 1, 2 , 3 and possibly others in the list of the 8 main protocols of data protection.


It also breached the POFA as the timings are wrong so no keeper liability anyway.


The wording they use refers to the liklihood of the issuing of a NTD and thet never happened so the 56 day limit isnt applicable.

My advice? ignore them as they rarely do court because they know they are incompetent

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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







Link to post
Share on other sites

They try it all the time and rarely get away with it. The Courts are well aware that cars can be driven by many more  people than just the keeper. Other members of the family and anyone else who has a car insurance policy that allows them to drive any   vehicle. 

In any case they need to have complied with POFA to be able to sue the keeper. As they frequently get that part wrong, they tend to assume that they are one and the same. Providing you haven't written in to challenge the PCN and given away the fact that you were driving, it will be almost impossible for them to win on the keeper being the driver. However, it is quite usual for them to get other things wrong so the question of who was driving becomes irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't have POFA they may well trot out the discredited AJH films and Elliott v Loake cases, but AJH is agency and employment  the driver unless in an employment isn't the Agent of the driver, and Elliott v Loake is criminal with the requirement under Criminal law for the dirver to be named, no such requirement exists in a Civil jurisdiction.  Some PPCs toyed with Norwich Pharmacal Order to force keeper to name driver, but are too expensive and overkill for a Parking case.  If they are quoting those cases which have been tolchocked by Djs already see Prankster) they know they are up the creek with the case, and are hoping for a victim to cough up before they get to court  by quoting loads of cases.

We could do with some help from you.



Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread


The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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... 





Link to post
Share on other sites
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?



Link to post
Share on other sites

If they cnat rely on the POFA to create a liability they can often still make a claim against the driver if that person is known. If you identify yourself as the diver they cna then take you to task and also get out of being sued for breach of the GDPR for basically telling lies to access your keeper details.

Stop playing their game because at present they have nothing and are heading fro trouble but try and sort this out with thema nd they then suddenly have all of the information and consent that allows then to chase you.


as for legal interest in the land, lack of showing a loss ect that is all irrelevant and the lawe there actually harms you raher then helps so stay away UNLESS you can show there is no chain of authority. I would keep thsi research tucked away  because if they do try their luck at court they will have to produce their authorities adn then you can compare notes and hopefully blow them out of the water.


Look at the law on performace of contracts and also consider short selling of stock and commodities futures on the stock exchange. You dont ahve to own anything to sell it as long as you cna get your hands on the stuff at the settlement time back in the early 1980's Neson and Bunker Hunt tried to corner the world market in silver. they bought all of the silver futures and forced the price up to £33 an ounce but they then fell flat because companies like Kodak actually wanted the metal rather than a promisory note so they were forced to buy the real metal and they made a loss on the deal. It lead to the famous quote "a billion dollars aint what it used to be".


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Long time no post,  a quick catch up.  So far 2 letters saying to pay etc and 1 debt recovery letter.


Monies owed - £60 then £100 and now £170.00... might as well be bananas at this point.


I will  redact and scan them in the next few days.


All sent to registered keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to MET ANPR PCN - Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

unlawful penalty.

They will keep it less than £200 overall because once they reach that figure peopel will start to question why and start researching and they will then lose that income stream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...