Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

MET ANRP PCN - Burger King - overstay? site 997 BP Blue Boys Tonbridge, TN12 7HE. **CANCELLED BY BP**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 481 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi there.

 

I got this notice today for an apparent 70 minute stay at a petrol station complex which apparently has 30 mins max.

 

I parked in a burger king which was part of the complex as we had lunch there and there was no advertised limit.

The photos on the notice are from when I drove in and out of the whole complex, not from somewhere within the complex and on the rear photo of my car they've used the front licence plate photo as evidence.

 

The area was a labyrinth of different parking spots - part of BP, M&S, Burger King and others but not clear signage was present at Burger King parking area.

 

Based on this and that they have no photos of my car within the area (only on entrance and exit)

 

I am thinking this is a bit of a cheeky and unenforceable "fine", not to mention far too high.

 

What are your thoughts on my next steps?

 

Ignore, tell them i'm not going pay for above reasons or go through their official dispute process?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

MET PCN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to the Forum.

The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which means that you as keeper cannot be liable for the amount demanded. As only the driver can be sued for the alleged debt it is important that you do not divulge the name of the driver.

That means not to appeal the ticket since you might by mistake admit that you were the driver. It would help if you could get photos of the signage at the entrance to the car park and inside the car park too. Especially where there are different terms and conditions on them. If there is a pay machine can you also show what the sign says there.

 

Just to clarify, is there only one entrance for the different car parks and do the different car parks have differing times that motorists can stay?

 

Thanks for already posting up the PCN -I have added below a questionnaire that will help to fill in the gaps to help you more.

 

From here you will probably receive demands for ever rising amounts up to about £180 which are unlawful and will not be allowed should this case ever get to Court. You will also get unregulated debt collectors chasing you with perhaps as many as three or four final letters. {they were absent the day their class did English comprehension].

 

You will probably get letters for several months at least and then it all goes quiet. After that they may decide to take you to court or they may not. If they do, we will help you get off.  Already they have messed up with their PCN so the keeper is not liable. The pictures would help perhaps to see if the driver is not liable either.

 

I didn't quite get the reference to the photos of your number plate-did they only get the rear number and used that as the front number as well? Could you please post up those photos when you fill in the questionnaire.

 

Just do not ignore the letters that you receive. Within a year or maybe five years you might get a letter headed "Letter Before Claim" or something similar. Do not ignore that and let us know so we can advise on your next steps.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fleecers love these set ups where they can entrap motorists.  It's done quite deliberately.  Absolutely do not appeal.  The PPCs never accept appeals and you would probably throw away your POFA 2012 protection.

 

I see there is a "Services" sign from the main road so it's obvious a driver would think this is a single area.

 

The fleecers' shenanigans have never been lawful but a recent government Code of Practice has spelt it out.  Have a look at 3.2 here  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#signs-and-surface-markings

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you complete the Questionnaire linked by LFI it would help, as a 30 minute time limit for whole complex would be ludicros given eat in or takeaway food outlets, as LFI says its NOT POFA compliant so do not appeal

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

Is this the location and plan of the area in the link below?

 

If so 30 minutes is laughable and likely against any original Planning permission given eat in and takeaway food premises Do the Fleecer's infest the entire site or just the BP? 

Important to know what the entrance to the whole complex says, so Googleeye street view might be a friend initially.

 

WWW.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG

OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET ANRP PCN - petrol station overstay?

are your number plates one yellow and one white then.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now these pictures are culled off Googleye Streetview, looks like a one way system, so you have to pass the camera's at image 3 on far right, and access through the BP complex and out following the One Way.  Can you recall if any signs anywhere on the way in mentioning time limits, important as the Streetview images might predate BP employing the fleecer's?

BK.pdf

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

1 Date of the infringement 8 may 2022

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 12 may 2022
 

3 Date received 12 may 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 BUT ONLY OF ROUNDABOUT ENTRANCE TO SERVICES AREA AND EXIT, no photos of vehicle at the services centre
 

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] BP Blue Boys Tonbridge, TN12 7HE
 

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

 

 

...................

 

Thank you all for your quick advices and help, and also for redacting extra parts of the pdf! Yes for the street view images, they seem to be from about 5 years ago so signage might be different now but I can’t really recall anything obvious - would have to drive all the way back.

 

My understanding is the best thing to do is nothing, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes await if/when they ever send a letter of claim.

 

ignore everything else

inc powerless DCA's - they are NOT bailiffs on any 'debt'

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely don't appeal, there likely is something wrong if the camera catches people using Burger King as there is only one way in and out so passing MET's camera's is unavoidable potentially.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

Ok. There are other parking areas within the complex such as for HGV’s, random spots, some outside m&s too. But as you say all are covered by this single camera at entrance exit near to roundabout. I will ignore it. Thank you all again!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, ignore the fleecers.

 

I've done some digging and ... before explaining, do you still have proof of purchase at Burger King?

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET ANRP PCN - Burger King - overstay? BP Blue Boys Tonbridge, TN12 7HE

Statement will do just fine so long as the transaction can be verified as BK

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

It is good that you came to the forum so quickly. It is a self help site contributed to by volunteer members, so it is important that you view similar private parking threads here so as to familiarise yourself with how these fleecers work and avoid making simple mistakes when dealing them. It also helps avoid asking question which have been asked myriad times before.

Although the advice at this stage is to ignore their demands, please keep safe all of the paperwork that you receive as unfortunately they do have 6 years to institute a County Court claim. Alongside ignoring their demands, also never admit to who was driving, or provide an email address to them. (free means of harassing you)

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you and yes I guess many have asked the same questions before - and that you are all volunteering your help and guidance and time here is really amazing. The power of collective knowledge! I’ll help pass it on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the fleecers refer to the area as "BP Blue Boys" and given there is written here  https://motorwayservices.uk/Tunbridge_Wells

 

Parking and use of the bp forecourt is limited to 30 minutes maximum stay and is strictly enforced by MET Parking.

 

what I suspect might have happened is this.

 

You drove in from the main road, entered the BP part and then exited it a few seconds later.  You parked at Burger King.  Afterwards you once again entered the BP part and left a few seconds later.

 

But the fleecers cameras are rubbish so have combined the two visits.  This is extremely common in this disgusting industry and has its own name "double dipping".

 

I therefore suggest that, as well as ignoring the fleecers, you get on to the CEO of BP  https://ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-9499&c=BP Plc-Chief Executive

 

Explain what happened, that you at no time abused BP's facilities and it is a disgrace you are getting demands for £100 when the driver and their party did nothing wrong.  Attach the proof that you were elsewhere at Burger King.  Demand BP get the fleecers to cancel the invoice.

 

It might work, you may get nowhere, they could come back and initially fob you off before round two - but it's got to be worth a try.

  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be that the cameras for the BP part are set up incorrectly and cover the entire access road thereby collaring every vehicle wherever its going on the site not just BP.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

Hello - after being away for the summer I’ve returned to three letters. Dated 5 July, second one 27 July and last one 15 august threatening legal action. The latest one gives me seven days which have elapsed as I only returned home today. Please see attached - what advice would be given at this stage? Thank you in advance!

 

And the latest one attached 

 

letters.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

are any of those a letter of claim from a solicitor?

have you been reading up in the last 2mts .....cag is self help tooo.......

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More threatograms not a Letter of Claim

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...