MET/CST PCN - occupants left Southgate premises - now letter of claim - Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

[Ashers192]

Hi All,

 

Sure this won't come as a surprise to you all, but another victim of the shody MET Parking Services and the ridiculous parking scenario at the Starbucks/McDonalds parking area near Stansted Airport.

 

Same story of parking in the car park, leaving the car to use facilities next door to each other.

 

Few weeks later, PCN shows up through the letter box. Details are below:

 

1. Date of the infringement

26th February 2022

 

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

16th March 2022 - See redacted copy attached.

 

3 Date received

Can't exactly remember but probably the 17th or 18th March

 

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

Doesnt seem to

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Yes, images of vehicle arriving and leaving as well as occupants walking to/from vehicle.

 

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

No appeal. Reluctant to do so.

 

7 Who is the parking company?

MET Parking Services

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

 

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

Reference to POPLA and BPA Logo at bottom of letter.

 

No other correspondence has been received as of yet. My initial thinking is that this is over the 14 days period, so I simply sit back and do nothing.

Just looking for a little reassurance essentially.

 

Thanks,

PCN - 26.02.2022.pdf

[dx100uk]

No one not even a judge can charge anyone for leaving a car in a carpark, it's called reverse trespass.

 

Totally ignore them until/unless you ever get a letter of claim.

 

Dx

[brassnecked]

Fleecers clutching at straws  again, they would try Reverse Trespass whether you bought stuff on the site before leaving or even when you came back.

[AndyOrch]

Topic open

[Ashers192]

Hi everyone,

 

Time for an update on this.

I have since received three letters from a company called Debt Recovery Plus regarding the non-payment of this parking charge.

 

The first was received on 11th May, the second 16th June and the most recent on 1st July.

The most recent states that they will now recommend to their client that they appoint solicitors if I dont pay before July 15th.

 

I assume I am still correct to ignore everything I'm receiving and continue on my way? Of course, I dont fancy the whole court proceeding business.

[dx100uk]

On 26/03/2022 at 18:39, dx100uk said:

Totally ignore them until/unless you ever get a letter of claim.

 

[dx100uk]

open

[Ashers192]

Good evening,

 

Time for another update.

I have as of this evening (Thursday 3rd November) received a Letter Before Claim, dated 27th October regarding the parking fine outlined in post #1. Nice to be receiving this one week in to the 30 days reply window already. Further tactics from CST?

As per previous posts, I know that now action has to be taken.

To recap on the situation.

Infringement Date - 26th February 2022

NTK Received - 16th March 2022 (19 days after alleged offence)

No contact whatsoever has been made in response to any letter received.

Since my last post in July, I have received a further 3 letters from CST Law each becoming more 'threatening'.

What should my next steps be?

I have just read about a case whereby someone contacted the Starbacks manager who was able to have the claim cancelled. This might be the easiest route as I'd much rather not have to waste any more time conversing with CST or MET Parking.

 

Thanks in advance,

[dx100uk]

Where does it say it's a fine please?

You should approach Starbucks yes and you must reply to the loc with a snotty letter at about day 28. 

Plenty of them already here to base yours on 

Dx

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 since it was sent out too late [you should have received it within 14  days]'.

 

Also they have not stated the length of time you stayed in the park which is another condition of the Act.

 

There are photos of your car-can you tell us the dates on them to see if there is any leeway there. But all this  means that you as keeper are not responsible for the debt only the driver is now responsible.

 

it is good that you have not appealed so they do not know who was driving and they cannot assume that the keeper was the driver in a court of Law. 

[Ashers192]

I've just tried using their portal to view the images of the car and I am unable to.

 

It says 'Sorry we cannot find this ticket - please check the details you have provided are correct' - The details I'm entering are correct. Do they no longer have the images on file to support their claim?0

The date on the photo printed on the PCN is 26-02-2022.

 

I obviously need to reply but am struggling to find an appropriate template to base this off. If anyone can point me in the right direction that would be much appreciated.

[dx100uk]

already advised how you reply in my last post.

 

what they hold or you have are immaterial to how you need to reply.

 

 

[Ashers192]

 

I'm aware I need to reply but I'm struggling to find a template to base my reply off of.

Edited November 14, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[lookinforinfo]

Find the Search button at the top right hand of the page and enter Snotty Letter. Then take your choice . The idea is to be rude in such a way to show that you are not scared of their stupid threats and are quite happy to see them in court .

[dx100uk]

use our enhanced google searchbox

snotty letter

 

no good you vanishing for 2 weeks either

CAG is self help too!!

 

dx

[Ashers192]

Okay, I've put something together. Your opinions please.

______

Dear CST Law, 

 

I write in response to your so-called ‘Letter Before Claim’ dated 27th October 2022 which has been received in relation to PCN Number xxxxxx, issued by MET Parking Services for alleged parking breaches.

 

I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying this ridiculous sum of money for the alleged breach of contract with your client, for a number of reasons.

 

Aside from the incredibly poor signage, you are trying to fleece me for, as MET clearly state themselves, an ‘apparent breach’.

 

Should your client wish to claim that this is an ANPR issued PCN, you have FAILED by not providing the NTK within the required 14 days from the date of apparent breach. Equally, if they would like to declare this as a parking attendant issued PCN, you will have again FAILED by not providing the NTK within the required 29-56 days.

 

The whole ‘claim’ is nonsense and I am sure any judge would agree should you and your client actually decide to pursue this wild goose chase any further. Any judge would clearly resent the waste of Court time.

 

I suggest you take a moment to consider your position on this make believe ‘penalty’ and your representation of your client. You are more than welcome to continue to waste more money on stamps and paper and envelopes, or you can simply cease this so called claim now and go pursue your other 'debtors’ instead.

 

Should this case go to court, despite making clear the sheer nonsense of doing so, I will be asking the Court not only for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g), but shall also later sue for breach of GDPR as you will know full well that your case is totally flawed. The standared for GDPR breaches is currently around £750. I am also strongly considering taking this matter up with the ICO as I have a strong feeling that the CCTV systems are being misused for underhanded, financial gain by your client.

 

Regards, 

The Registered Keeper

______

 

Not to sure if the part about ANPR / parking attendant issuing is relevant to be honest. Reading some other cases there seems to be some confusion as to which bracket it falls under. FWIW, there was no windscreen ticket issued.

The ICO line is something I haven't read up on but would be keen to follow up on once this has been taken care of.

 

Tomorrow I intend to speak with Starbucks about getting this all cancelled as hopefully that will be the easier option.

 

I also intend to sign off as the registered keeper, and not use any name. Obviously they have the name from DVLA already but why should I make it any easier for them. Unless I do need to sign off with my name.

Thanks,

Edited November 15, 2022 by Ashers192

[brassnecked]

Not bad but not disparaging enough also too much detail, you are giving them information of what you might use in a defence WS.

delete  all below

"Aside from the incredibly poor signage, you are trying to fleece me for, as MET clearly state themselves, an ‘apparent breach’.

 

Should your client wish to claim that this is an ANPR issued PCN, you have FAILED by not providing the NTK within the required 14 days from the date of apparent breach. Equally, if they would like to declare this as a parking attendant issued PCN, you will have again FAILED by not providing the NTK within the required 29-56 days.!"

 

Insert something like  I know and you now know I know the claim is basically pants, in its stead.

 

Others will be along with some suggestions soon  less is more with a snotty letter, polite it must not be.

[FTMDave]

I agree with BN.  You should never play your cards too early.  Otherwise if the matter gets to court the fleecers will be forewarned and will have made up lies to undermine your case.  How about -

 

 

Dear CST Law, 

 

I write in response to your so-called ‘Letter Before Claim’ dated 27th October 2022 which has been received in relation to PCN Number xxxxxx, issued by MET Parking Services for alleged parking breaches.

 

I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying this ridiculous sum of money for the alleged breach of contract with your client.

 

You know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons your client's invoice is a total dog's dinner.

 

The whole ‘claim’ is nonsense and I am sure any judge would agree should you and your client actually decide to pursue this wild goose chase any further. Any judge would clearly resent the waste of Court time.

 

CoP.  3.2  Get off your backsides, do some due diligence for once and go and look it up.

 

I suggest you take a moment to consider your position on this make believe ‘penalty’ and your representation of your client. You are more than welcome to continue to waste more money on stamps and paper and envelopes, or you can simply cease this so called claim now and go pursue your other 'debtors’ instead.

 

Should this case go to court, despite making clear the sheer nonsense of doing so, I will be asking the Court not only for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g), but shall also later sue for breach of GDPR as you will know full well that your case is totally flawed. The standared for GDPR breaches is currently around £750. I will also take this matter up with the ICO as I have a strong feeling that the CCTV systems are being misused for underhanded, financial gain by your client.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO MET PARKING SERVICES LTD

 

Regards, 

The Registered Keeper

 

 

If you agree invest in two 2nd class stamps today and get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office.

 

The cryptic bit in the middle refers to a section of the government Code of Practice  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#signs-and-surface-markings

 

As you say, Starbucks might intervene.  Belt & braces.  The CEO's details are here  https://ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-82463&c=Starbucks UK-General Manager

 

[brassnecked]

That looks OK the main thing is to let them know you know what their game and MO is and that you aren't an easy pushover.

[Ashers192]

Thanks both.

I've just got off the phone with the Starbucks store manager who is unable to do anything about it. Said that every single call she has had to her number in the last 3 weeks (She is new to the role) is saying/asking the exact same thing.

I note the Code of Practice link shared currents states it is withdrawn as of June 7th 2022, pending review. I'll proceed with the above revised letter by FTMDave. i

Assume that I can just send a copy of the letter to MET at the address they are asking payment slips to be sent to, to cover the copied to MET parking line at the bottom. Or should I send it to their registered office address?

Just to check, there is no harm in signing off just as 'The Registered Keeper'?

And assume there is no need to complete the reply form that was sent with the LBC?

[dx100uk]

It goes to cst copy to met 

 

Yes reg'd keeper typed only

[FTMDave]

Plus escalate to Starbucks CEO then.

[Ashers192]

Well the letter is sent.

I shall wait to hear more, or hopefully not!

[FTMDave]

Any reply from Starbucks CEO?

[Ashers192]

No reply from Starbucks, but I have had a reply from MET Parking.

 

I'll save scanning the doc and just write it word for word below.

 

'Thank you for copying in your letter to CST Law. We note your comments to them and can confirm that there is nothing in the letter that would preclude our agents from taking legal action.

 

We also note you make reference to breaches of GDPR however we can see no breaches in the case file. Details of your rights with regard to Data Protection and where to obtain a copy of our privacy policy are disclosed on the charge you are referencing. For ease of reference a copy of our privacy policy may be seen at www.metparking.com/privacynotice, or can be heard by calling 0207 118 3080. It is also available by emailing [email protected].

 

In the meantime please be aware that we hold and process data about you under the following legal bases:

- Contract - The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and remain in the location.

- Legitimate Interests - Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car park is effectively manage, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of the location.

 

Yours sincerely,

Data Protection Team

 

I presume I just ignore this and wait to see if CST Law send anything letters?