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

[Rodney Trotter490]

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. 

[lookinforinfo]

Welcome to the Forum. Looks like there was a windscreen ticket issued.

Not too difficult to avoid paying those crooks. Please do not challenge the PCN as it might reveal if you were the driver. To help us give you as much help as we can, could you please complete the questionnaire below.

 

 

[dx100uk]

follow this one ..

 

 

[dx100uk]

and read 

 

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=Stansted Southgate carpark&oq=Stansted Southgate carpark&gs_l=partner-generic.12...6228.6228.0.8091.1.1.0.0.0.0.82.82.1.1.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.0...2.34.partner-generic..1.0.0.jx6tqBO8mSA

[Rodney Trotter490]

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?]

No

 

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]

No
 

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

No
 

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

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

PCN_Redacted.pdf

[honeybee13]

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

 

HB

[dx100uk]

you've yet to outline what happened

i'e car parked in Mc'ds car park, all occupants walked to pizza hut....

 

it is as all the other speculative invoices here like in those threads I've linked too in my above

.and all the Berkeley ones

 

don't respond in anyway shape or form unless/until you get a letter of claim from one of the many fake/tame paperwork only solicitors.

the come here 1st!!

 

no-one can do anything on this as a carpark is not a prison camp whereby you cant cross the wire, and ofcourse it's not reverse trespass for leaving it nor can they do anything as you have trespassed on someone elses land by leaving the car park

 

the fact you didn't pay nor get a ticket is totally irrelevant.

 

dx

 

 

[Rodney Trotter490]

5 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

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

 

HB

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.

 

Regards

[honeybee13]

Please don't state anything to MET Parking at this stage as dx says, it could just make things worse.

 

By all means ask the DVLA but I don't think it's an FOI request.

 

HB

[Rodney Trotter490]

@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.

 

Regards

[Rodney Trotter490]

Is there a standard format or should I quote the vehicle regs, BPA code of practice and POFA when asking who has been given access to the keepers details.

[honeybee13]

I think dx posted a format yesterday, I'll try to find it, unless you spot it first.

 

Don't be in too much of a rush, evidence gathering is important so we have a bit of time.

 

HB

[Rodney Trotter490]

 Cheers,

[dx100uk]

pers I wouldn't bother 

it's not going to achieve anything..

 

ignore until/unless PAPLOC comes.

which there is no evidence here they do ever send one.

 

just after mugs that panic and cough up.

 

dx

 

 

 

[Rodney Trotter490]

PAPLOC?

[dx100uk]

pre action protocol letter of claim 

read post 7

they MUST do that even if they think they might poss ever take this to court.

which ofcourse they won't.

 

lots of southgate threads here you need to read them 

see links posts 3&4 

[Rodney Trotter490]

 

 

Thank you, just seen a similar thread for PAPLOC

 

I have read them and many more it seems this is an ongoing issue, MET have certainly upped the signage 

[dx100uk]

just type please don't use quote 

it makes finding replies so difficult.

 

they cant simply change the signs/free hours without council permission...and that has not been applied for nor granted.

 

sit on your hands

await if/unless PAPLOC

 

don't forget the next stages as i'm sure you've read as you say.

lots of scary letters from DCA's

 

remember a DCA is 

NOT A BAILIFF on ANY debt ..no matter what it's type.

and have 

ZERO legal powers on ANY debt either

 

dx

 

[Rodney Trotter490]

Thank you dx and you advice is well received. 

 

will remember about the 'quote' thing and it seems you already know a lot about this site.

 

RT

 

 

[honeybee13]

dx should know a lot about the site, Rodney, he's part of the site team.

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

was there a picture of the vehicle on the NTK that you have redacted?

if so taken from what angle?

Just need to make clear whether this was an operator picture or ANPR/CCTV.

 

Now the NTK mentions 2 breaches but says "occupants".

Any contract only applies to the driver, so you can have 5 passengers who all leave site and the sole purpose of the visit was to go ensewhere but that is not a breach because the driver is the only one who read and accepts the contract so what the passengers do is entirely irrelevant.

 

Ibbotson is the driving case on this and that means even the driver isnt bound by a rule that says anything about leaving site because as will all contracts there will be parts that vary in importance.

 

Imagine you employ a builder to redo your bathroom and as well as ripping out the old bath, installing shower, new toilet ect you specify the shape of the taps. you cant avoid paying him for refitting the bathroom if the taps you wanted were out of stock, on it own that isnt enough to destroy the intentions to create a contract in the original meeting of minds.

 

same applies here even though most parking co's either dont understand the laws they rely on to create a contract or they deliberately try and cause confusion because they cant make money honestly.

 

Again, judges have commented upon this when it comes to the wording of the offfer and then chucked out the claim because the signage is confusing (well they cant call an incompetent a liar because that would imply some level of intelligence that in truth is lacking)

[Rodney Trotter490]

EB,

 

The picture was taken from high, therefore an ANPR to get plate and CCTV to show parking.

 

Regards

[dx100uk]

bet its not ANPR

can you put them up please.

 

dx

 

[Rodney Trotter490]

EB,

 

I would have to start an appeal in order to get the rest of the images by filling out the info on the 'appealMET' web page.  So hadn't entertained to even try to get the extra 'photographic evidence'.

 

RT

[dx100uk]

are you sure you can't access the additional images ?

theres no evidence in the threads I linked to above that others had to appeal first to get them....

 

dx