MET Parking charge - Southgate Park Stansted - Should I ignore or pay?

[GazzaUK]

Today I received a letter from MET Parking Services, saying I was in breach of their T's & C's by leaving the site of Southgate Park , Stansted..

 

Driver parked car, entered Starbucks, bought something in Starbucks and then went next door to McDonalds. MET have pictures of driver entering Starbucks Coffee Shop (the site) and leaving a few minutes later to go next door to McDonalds

 

Having reviewed previous posts on this location. I think I can ignore the notice and the subsequent notices and threats, as I didn't receive the letter within 14 days of the event.

 

Redacted copy of the letter from MET is attached.

 

What should I do? Ignore or pay the fine?

 

280322 - Parking Charge Notice Redacted.pdf

Edited April 2, 2022 by GazzaUK
Removed personal information

[dx100uk]

Where does it say it's a fine please?

 

Dx

[GazzaUK]

It doesn't it says it is a 'parking charge notice'.

[dx100uk]

That's better ...very important differences

 

Plenty of threads here on this place .you can't get a speculative invoice for reverse trespass..think about it ..

 

dx

[GazzaUK]

I thought that was the case. Thank you for the confirmation.

 

So should I ignore it, or appeal the charge notice?

I've read on other threads that it's best to ignore it, as to appeal I have to give them the drivers name, and that's not a good idea. 

 

I know if I ignore it, I'll get lots of letters demanding I pay and it could end up in court, but all the previous threads say that if it does go to court it will be dismissed. I don't mind getting the letter, etc. but not being a legal expert I want to have some confidence that ignoring it won't get me in trouble.

 

Also, I read on other threads that if the notice is not delivered in 14 days, it is not enforceable anyway. This was delivered 20 days after the event. So another reason to ignore it.

[dx100uk]

Its not an anpr capture, not 14days...so you should have gotten a windscreen ticket.

 

read and fillout our have you a parking ticket sticky on the homepage of this ppc forum .

 

all will become clearer.

 

Dx

 

[dx100uk]

fill this out and read it too!

 

 

[GazzaUK]

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

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

 

Please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement 13 March 2022

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 28 March 2022
 

3 Date received 2 April 2022
 

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, photos of driver walking into Starbucks Coffee Shop and later walking to McDonalds 4-5meters from Starbucks entrance. Starbucks is 'the site' that MET Parking Services is saying the driver walked out of and therefore is in breach of MET T&C's
 

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

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY
 

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

Independent Appeals Service (POPLA)

 

PCN Letter already attached to this thread (see 1st post in this thread)
 

 

 

[dx100uk]

go pull starbucks chain

but do not appeal to MET.

 

your NTK has been issued too soon, for a (vanishing) windscreen ticket that should have arrived 29 - 56 days.

 

you might also find worth in complaining to the ICO as their CCTV cameras are being used to spy on peoples activities not for parking matters.

 

dx

 

 

[GazzaUK]

You've confused me.

'your NTK has been issued too soon, for a (vanishing) windscreen ticket that should have arrived 29 - 56 days.'

There was no windscreen ticket.

NTK was issued by MET on 28 March, 15 days after incident.

NTK was received in post on 2 April, 20 days after incident.

How was 'NTK issued too soon'? Was it not received by 'Keeper'  too late? i.e. more than 14 days after the incident.

[FTMDave]

The most common way the fleecers go after motorists is with ANPR capture.  There is a photo of the car going into the car park and coming out.  The keeper is supposed to receive their invoice within 14 days.

 

But your case is different if they have photos of you personally entering Starbucks and then going to McDonalds.  There must be some creep spying and taking photos.  In these cases they are supposed to leave a ticket on the windscreen and then send their invoice 29-56 days after the incident.  They have epically failed.

[GazzaUK]

They do have photos or car entering and leaving, but also photos of driver walking into Starbucks and then going to McD's.

So I assume this is ANPR capture, but because NTK was received 20 days after incident, there is no reason to identify driver and therefore no reason to pay. Is this correct?

[FTMDave]

Yes.

 

They've messed up whichever way the photos were taken.

 

ANPR: 20 days is longer than 14 days.

 

Parking attendant: 20 days is shorter than 29-56 days.

 

As long as you don't communicate with them and out yourself as the driver, they're stuffed.

 

I love the way their bilge only refers to an "apparent breach".  Well, it wasn't a real breach then so that's OK!  Plus it doesn't even mention Starbucks!

[dx100uk]

how can an ANPR (automatic NUMBER PLATE recognition) camera capture and follow HUMANS - have you a number plate on your forehead?

 

its CCTV capture so 29-56 days.

 

go read that thread i posted..

and re read the information posts in that sticky you completed again.

 

its a vanishing (not issued) windscreen ticket.

[lookinforinfo]

This looks like an entrapment site. There are two car parks together.  One of them is for use by MacDonalds, the other isn't. On one of their notices they say that they have both ANPR and CCTV in operation but they don't say why they need them both.

 

You can see an article about it here-

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park

 

Most of the PCNs I have seen are outside the 14 day period but before the 28+ day plus period so not claiming under PoFA. I would have thought that they would not have applied for planning permission.

Edited April 3, 2022 by lookinforinfo

[GazzaUK]

Thanks you all for the advice.

 

I'll ignore, not appeal and wait for the letters and threats to arrive, and then ignore them. Unless it's a court summons and then I put the case that they didn't follow the rules.

[dx100uk]

do not ignore a letter of claim.

 

dx

 

[honeybee13]

Or unless you get a Letter Before Claim in which case you need to send a 'snotty' letter which can lead to them stopping the court case.

 

HB

[AndyOrch]

Topic open

[GazzaUK]

It's been over a year since I last heard from CST Law, but I need some advice.

1. Following the last post, I received a Letter Before Claim towards the end of October 2022. Redacted copy attached.
2. I disputed the LBC in November 2022, before the 30 day period. Redacted copy attached.
3. I have received no response from CST to my disputed response in November 2022.
4. I received a letter from CST Law in early October 2023, saying that if I didn't pay the debt within 30 days they would take me to court. This had a different CST Ref. No. to the original communication in 2022. Redacted copy attached.
5. I responded to the letter in 4. saying that they hadn't indicated in their letter what PCN it related to. I asked if it related to the previous PCN in 1. above. I included a copy of my response from 2. above. Redacted copy attached.
6. I have now received a new Letter Before Claim with same PCN as quoted in 1. above but new reference no. quoted in 4. above. 

What should I do?

Thanks in advance.

Doc Point 2 - 2211XX - CST Law LBC Response Redacted.pdf Doc Point 4 - 2310XX - CST Law Letter Redacted.pdf Doc Point 5 - 2310XX - CST Law LBC Response Redacted.pdf

Doc Point 1 - 2210XX - Starbucks Stansted Letter Before Claim Redacted.pdf

Doc Point 1 - 2210XX - Starbucks Stansted Letter Before Claim Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

There's no great harm done as you've not outed yourself as the driver.

However, I would question threatening to sue them for harassment when presumably you have no intention of actually doing so.  There is a very high bar for harassment and chasing up what they consider to be a commercial debt isn't harassment.

About a month ago I trawled through the last 50 cases we have for MET for this site, and in not one case had they had the gonads to do court.  Since then there has been a change.  They are dragging up these old tickets, adding a huge amount of interest, and in two cases have issued court claims. 

So you need to send a seriously snotty letter - you're far too polite in your communications! - making it crystal clear that you would be a huge pain in the backside for them if they did do court, with the aim of convincing them it's not worth it in your case.

[GazzaUK]

Is this a sufficiently snotty letter? Please advise if I should add/rtemove/change anything. Many thanks in advance.

Start of proposed letter

Sir/Madam/Ms, 

I write in response to your second so-called ‘Letter Before Claim’ (how many are you going to send me?!)  dated nn^th October 2023 which has been received in relation to PCN Number XXXXXXXX, issued by MET Parking Services for apparent parking breaches.

 

I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying this ridiculous sum of money for the apparent 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 you 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 you would like to declare this as a parking attendant issued PCN, you will again have FAILED as no ticket was issued at the time, and again subsequently 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 actually decide to pursue this wild goose chase any further. Any judge would clearly resent the waste of Court time. 

 

I am no expert in these matters, but I am getting assistance from experienced individuals who are, and will, defend vigorously any action you may take.

 

I suggest you take a moment to consider your position on this make believe ‘penalty’. You are more than welcome to continue to waste more money on staff costs, stamps, paper and envelopes, or you can simply cease this so-called claim for an apparent breach 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 standard for GDPR breaches is currently around £750.

 

Regards, 

 

The Registered Keeper

 

 

COPIED TO MET PARKING SERVICES LTD

End of proposed letter

[FTMDave]

A snotty letter has to show you're confident in your knowledge of the legal position - you can't just say "F off I'm not paying".  On the other hand you don't want to give away too much about what you would argue if it got to court.  A difficult line to tread!  I think mentioning the rubbish signage is enough, no need to go on about POFA.  I would suggest these changes.

If you're happy with the alterations, invest in two 2nd class stamps on Monday and get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office.

Start of proposed letter

Sir/Madam/Ms, 

firstly, would you please kindly note that I no longer live at XXXXX but instead now reside at XXXXX.

I write in response to your second so-called ‘Letter Before Claim’ (how many are you going to send me?!)  dated nn^th October 2023 which has been received in relation to PCN Number XXXXXXXX, issued by MET Parking Services for apparent parking breaches.

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

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

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

C'mon - your client has been humiliated on a national TV programme regarding their antics in this car park!

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 your client knows full well that their case is totally flawed. The standard for GDPR breaches is currently around £750.

I look forward to your deafening. silence.

Regards,  XXXXX

COPIED TO MET PARKING SERVICES LTD

End of proposed letter

Edited November 5, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[GazzaUK]

Thanks for the previous advice FTMDave.

Do I need to complete and return the standard CST Law 'REPLY FORM' that was sent with the Letter Before Claim? When I send them my response?

KR

[honeybee13]

Don't fill in their form, they could be fishing for information.

Have you sent off the snotty letter?

HB