Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • 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
      • 160 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 ANPR 2019 PCN Claimform - Occupants left Car Park - Southgate Park, Stansted Airport


Recommended Posts

Apologies for starting what appears to be yet another thread about this infamous joke of a car park, but after receiving the usual "invoice" from MET Parking Services over FOUR YEARS ago, they've now finally sent a Claim Form!  I've had a look through a few of the threads but couldn't see any advice on what to do now they've finally taken it to this stage.

The claim is now for the original amount plus interest at 8% for the four years, plus court and legal fees.

As it's so long since this happened, I'll do my best to summarise what happened:

  • Parked 5 spaces in to the "Starbucks car park" and walked across to McDonalds - 18th July 2019
  • Received the penalty notice dated 2nd September 2019 - 46 days later so I'm sure that's outside of the usual period!
  • Did look to appeal but their shoddy appeals website wasn't secure so attempted to call them - only number to call them is the payment line!
  • I think I finally spoke to someone and they said to appeal in writing - it was 2019, they use state of the art technology but can't pay £30 for an SSL certificate - no thanks!
  • Have continued to receive various threatening letters from no less than 3 collection agencies (Debt Recovery Plus, Zenith Collections, CST Law)
  • Zenith Collections offered reduced amount with 'Notice of Intention to Commence Legal Proceedings' back in Jan 2020 
  • CST Law sent letter before claim in February 2021
  • I sent them a data protection request for the photos etc after receiving this and had a response from the CEO and 'Executive Assitant' - mentioned about the 14 days but said I'd have to speak to Debt Recovery Plus
  • Received the SAR along with the photos which were no longer available on the website at this point

Any suggestions on best next steps, I've got 14 days now to respond as I received this on Thursday and it looks like you get 5 days from the date of issue before the 14 days start.  Happy to fight this and go to court, if they have the balls to...

Let me know what information you need to assist, I have all the letters still from them and their various collection agencies.

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

What response did you have to the SAR

When did you send it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum and well done on checking through relevant threads.

Not sure why they have picked on you to take to Court.

You have either written something to them that has singled you out as not being knowledgeable enough about the private parking laws or you have just annoyed them🙂.

To help us help you could you please fill in the questions on the form below-

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, please fill in the sticky.

Fellow Site Team member dx100uk will be on shortly with details of how to open a MCOL account and start to defend the claim.

  • 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

They provided the information very quickly actually, just over an hour, my details and all the photos they had. 

I responded highlighting the issues contacting them previously and the lack of a secure appeals portal. 

Also asked them why they continued to chase me despite issuing the invoice well outside the 14 days,

received a PDF letter the next day just saying I'd taken the decision not to appeal so had to take it up with the collection agency.  This was back in Feb 2021.

Thanks, will get that detail over to you in the morning! 

I suspect as I actually did speak to them and gone via the DPO@ address that I've annoyed them

i.e. actually found a way to get them to answer correspondence and not hide behind website query forms!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCN being delivered late only means that they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper after the first 28 days. So you as keeper cannot be liable for the PCN only the driver is now responsible . As the driver could be anyone  who has a valid motor insurance policy  is able to drive your car and Court do not accept that the keeper and the driver  are the same person. so they will have their work cut out.

Good for you for annoying them. Very shortly you will be sending them a snotty letter which will not endear you to them either. But it's nothing personal, it's designed to show them that you are not scared of them or going to court.  [Ok I lied, it is personal].

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET ANPR 2019 PCN Claimform - Southgate Park, Stansted Airport

It sounds like you've had a fair amount of correspondence with them.

So, have you "outed" yourself as the driver at any point?

Be nice to see all the comms between you.

Please upload anything you have.

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, full details below of the claim, have also scanned a redacted copy less the references and my personal data.

Which Court have you received the claim from ? MCOL Northampton

Name of the Claimant :  MET Parking Services Ltd

Claimants Solicitors: DCB Legal

Date of issue – 23rd October 2023

Date for AOS - 10th November 2023

Date to submit Defence - 24th November 2023

What is the claim for  

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle xxx at (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY.

2. The PCN details are 18/07/2019, xxxx

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C.  The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.  D is liable as the driver or keeper.  Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding.  The Contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.01 until judgement or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees. 

What is the value of the claim?

Amount Claimed £231.04

Court fees £35.00 

Legal rep fees £50.00 

Total Amount £316.04

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? Yes, moved in November 2020

Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? No, I don't recall receiving one recently.  Just found some more letters from Direct Collection Bailliffs Ltd (DCBL) from December 2022 - January 2023.  These were notice of debt recovery, final reminder, final notice and notice of intended legal action.  Nothing received since then.

ClamForm_Redacted.pdf

I think I've had the initial letter plus two chasers from them,

then 4 different recovery agencies, all of which have sent a 'notice of legal proceedings' letter before it going quiet then another agency sending letters months or even years later!

The only correspondence I've really had with them was the emails mentioned above plus maybe one phone call when some lad in the payment department actually answered the phone. 

I've confirmed my registration and the PCN reference but never admitted it was me in writing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

dcb legal, a solicitor, are the ones that might have  sent a letter of claim.

in the fullness of time we will need you to scan everything in/out, by whatever method of comms, bothsides of every letter, to one mass date ordered pdf please.

phone calls do not count.

so std procedure going fwd:

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.

register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.


Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...


You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 

then log in to the MCOL Website

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim


type your name ONLY


no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

………….
 

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

I would write to the court pointing out that Met parking have not specified whether you are being pursued as the keeper or the driver.

As the Court does not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person and that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that if the keeper does not divulge the name of the driver within 28 days of receiving the PCN then it is the keeper who becomes liable to pay for the breach.

Would the Court please confirm therefore that Met Parking should be pursuing me as the keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concentrate on doing AOS and CPR as dx has explained.

Then come back here and we can look at getting evidence to scupper MET.

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

Well done.

If you want to save a few bob send the letter 2nd class and get a free Certificate of Posting, that is quite sufficient as proof of postage.

We don't need to see the reminder letters, especially from the various powerless DCAs, but what is important is
   - the original PCN
   - the reply to the SAR
   - anything you wrote to them
   - if they sent you Latter 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So sorry for the delay, I completely forgot about this for a while!  If I calculated the dates correctly I need to submit my response by Friday so massive apologies this is very short notice!

I did send the letter to DCB Legal and received a bunch of documentation back yesterday.  I've now scanned in all the various letters and redacted them all (before re-reading your comment above that this was not needed).  I've attached redacted copies of the following as per your last message:

  • Original SAR
  • Letter before claim from CST Law - this was the only letter I ever received from them and was the third agency I'd received letters from (Debt Recovery Plus / Zenith Collections before, DCBL after)
  • MET parkings response to my SAR
  • My response to their email

I assume I now submit my defence through the MCOL website?

 

docs1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/10/2023 at 09:28, TravellingTechy said:

Date to submit Defence - 24th November 2023

the defence you'll be filing is already in the sticky further down from where you completed the above from.

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

Thanks for the quick responses.  I've read through the sticky and the related link and drafted the following:
 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1. The Defendant was the recorded keeper of [xxx] on the date in question.

2. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.  

3. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.

4. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.

5. It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for over four years and to claim more than four years' interest.

6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Is that sufficient for now?

Edited by FTMDave
Extra info added
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've added an extra point in red to the defence.  File it when you want.

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

  • 3 weeks later...
On 21/11/2023 at 23:26, TravellingTechy said:

Great, thanks, I wasn't sure how much detail to put in at this stage.  Defence submitted, thanks for all your help.

Hello Travelling Techy.

How are things going with this Court Claim? I am in the same situation with Met parking and was sent a Court Claim recently by dcb. My 14 days are up on soon and keen to know what you got in reply.

I will defend this as well.

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a few claim forms since, almost all sent to people who ignored the Letter of Claim.

But yes, please start your own thread, everyone's circumstances are different.

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

keep a weekly watch on MCOL claim history for mention of DQ N180's being sent out IF they wish to progress it and not let it get autostayed.

but be aware we know that just last week CNBC were only just processing paperwork for 4th oct!

so dont start cheering for at least 8 weeks....or more.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...