MET/CST ANPR PCN Claimform - occupants left carpark - (346) SOUTHGATE PARK STANSTED CM24 1PY. **CLAIM DISCONTINUED**

[honeybee13]

Hi.

Do all the points in the generic defence match your particular case? It's good to make sure.

We're happy to help get it ready but you don't need to send it off ready, just have it on standby.

HB

[dx100uk]

why not simply check other thread with 

- occupants left carpark -

in the title for the same address??

i also note you've not picked up by reading around that you can even at this late stage appeal to starbucks/euro garages...

[lostthebrick]

I received a response from CST Law on behalf of my CPR31-14 request (I didn't think they'd bother).

It consists of:
1) All letters sent to myself (NTK, Debt Recovery Plus Letters, Letter Before Claim)
2) Parking enforcement contract with landowner 
3) Photographic evidence of the parking contravention
4) Relevant signage

I have uploaded these documents for reference.  I have not uploaded copies of previous debt chasing letters or the NTK and Letter Before Claim as these have been previously uploaded. 

In summary, I note the following:

1) Notice to Registered Keeper was dated 25 days after parking contravention (is this too late for a claim to be made against the keeper?)

2) Vehicle entered at 10:41am and left at 11.09am (a total duration of 27 minutes

3) Photographic evidence of occupants heading towards McDonalds

4) Photographic evidence of occupant heading to Starbucks.

5) Two signs behind vehicle parking location:

 a) Sign 1 indicates 60 Minutes Free Max Stay, and then in smaller print indicating that the parking is for South Gate Park -Stansted Customers Only, Park within lines, Disabled Badge Areas, and Hatched Areas. 

 b) Sign 2 (placed below Sign 1) refers to Pay By Phone for stay greater than 60 minutes, and within the small print of this sign they have written "McDonald's is not in Southgate Park"

The issues I have with the ludicrous court claim by Starbucks/Met Parking Services/CST Law

1) Vehicle parked for only 27 minutes

2) Occupants used the facilities within the service area.

3) It is not clear from the prominent sign that Southgate Park does not include the whole services area, you would only read sign 2 if you had the intention of "paying by phone" for a longer stay and therefore they have not made it clear that McDonald's is not in Southgate Park.

Signage indicating that the car parking spaces are for "STARBUCKS CUSTOMERS ONLY - WE WILL PROSECUTE YOU IF YOU GO TO MCDONALDS" in large font would make it less confusing to people.

4) You enter the service area via McDonalds, if there really are two different service areas, why is there not a separate access point to the Starbucks carpark.  Or an automatic barrier control for access to and from the Starbucks car park making it clear you are entering a separate area.  

5) Why is pedestrian access not restricted between Starbucks and McDonalds (a gate/fence with restrictions on would be clearer)

6) Why is there a zebra crossing leading from Starbucks out of the area and a paved footpath to McDonalds?  This is an encouragement for visitors to Starbucks to also visit McDonalds?

Surely, this is all common sense and it is nonsense to pursue a claim for parking contraventions.  

But if they want to go ahead with their court claim it won't worry me, as win or lose they will be the ones highlighting the nonsense of their regulations to the court and press, and just maybe something will be done to change their behaviour to save others falling foul

CPR Response.pdf

[wisniawy]

I wonder if they send me reply as well most likely now you have got it . My one is for overstaying let’s see 

[dx100uk]

On 02/01/2024 at 16:09, lostthebrick said:

The issues I have with the ludicrous court claim by Starbucks/Met Parking Services/CST Law:

the claim is nothing to do with starbucks they are not named as the claimant nor the solicitor.

On 02/01/2024 at 16:09, lostthebrick said:

Signage indicating that the car parking spaces are for "STARBUCKS CUSTOMERS ONLY - WE WILL PROSECUTE YOU IF YOU GO TO MCDONALDS" in large font would make it less confusing to people.

because they cannot do that, its called reverse trespass, a land owner cannot prosecute you for leaving their land nor entering someone elses.

[FTMDave]

You refer to their court claim as "ludicrous", and of course you're right ...

... but in a sense it's not ludicrous at all.  It is sensible.  This is a scam site.  It has been exposed as a scam site on national television.  It makes complete sense to have these absurd rules that have no connection to sensibly running a car park if you want to scam motorists.

Anyway, on to what they have sent.  You've already sussed their invoice is too late for keeper liability.  Plus the pathetic signage.  All excellent meat for your WS later down the line.  Oh, CST Law can't reply straight away re planning permission!!  I wonder why!!!

BTW, have you done what dx suggested in post 27 re Euro Garages?

[lookinforinfo]

I have a had a look at their contract. It seems scandalous that they can include clamping in 2013 when it was outlawed in October 2012. Not sure if that renders their contract unenforceable -perhaps the Site team can inform. 

In any case there does not appear for Met to have permission to take motorists to Court.

[lostthebrick]

12 hours ago, FTMDave said:

You've already sussed their invoice is too late for keeper liability.

 

I'm a bit confused what the legality of this is. 

I've read around the internet that NTK should be issued within 14 days for ANPR when no ticket has been stuck to the windscreen, and if later the keeper can not be held liable. 

How does this work in law? 

Can a claim be thrown out of court simply because the claimant failed to issue a NTK within 14 days, and they do not know the identity of the driver to prosecute? 

Could a court demand that you identify the drivers details in order for the claim to be correctly addressed to the driver, or to confirm that you were not the driver in question?

Plan for this week is to complete the MCOL defence before the deadline, write to EURO Garages as suggested. 

Will also be penning a letter to my MP to highlight the issues this car park is having on motorists.  

[Nicky Boy]

3 hours ago, lostthebrick said:

Can a claim be thrown out of court simply because the claimant failed to issue a NTK within 14 days, and they do not know the identity of the driver to prosecute?

Firstly, they don't prosecute anyone. Prosecution is for criminal actions. They sue.

Invariably, the PPC's issue a vague claim against the Keeper / Driver... If they continue the action after Witness Statement exchange, the "throwing out" relies on making your POFA case to the Judge on the day. (Among other things).

3 hours ago, lostthebrick said:

Could a court demand that you identify the drivers details in order for the claim to be correctly addressed to the driver, or to confirm that you were not the driver in question?

No. That's why POFA exists.

[lostthebrick]

does the POFA line of defence only cover NTKs issued after the 14 day period? 

Why is this 14 day period relevant? 

I appreciate this is only one line of defence in my case, but just want to understand the basis here, and will possibly help others reading.

[Nicky Boy]

18 minutes ago, lostthebrick said:

So does the POFA line of defence only cover NTKs issued after the 14 day period?  Why is this 14 day period relevant?

No, POFA has numerous aspects, which could be relevant to defence....

Here's a little light reading...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

 

[FTMDave]

How the law works in England & Wales is that anyone can sue anyone for anything.  If I knew your address I could pop onto MCOL now and start a court claim against you for say £200 because I don't like the style of shoes you're wearing today.  In a couple of days a claim form would pop through your letter box.  It would only cost me £35.

In fact I might even win the case - if you failed to defend by the deadline or if you were so terrified of going to court that you gave in.

In fact that's why the PPCs start court cases which are often hopeless.  It's a numbers game.  Presumably most people give in.  If the motorist doesn't give in then the PPC can always discontinue and lose just £35.  Or they can try their luck in court and take a hammering from time to time.  Sadly they still make a profit on the court game.

I think the logic that you must receive the invoice within 14 days is because it would be unfair to expect someone to remember an event from months before, plus there has to be time for an appeals procedure.

So they know you are the keeper of the vehicle.  They sue you.  You argue in your Witness Statement that they are suing the wrong person, they should be suing the driver.

Scenario 1 - the invoice has arrived within 14 days.  That bit of your defence fails.  They are allowed to sue the keeper.  The case is decided on other points.

Scenario 2 - the invoice hasn't arrived within 14 days.  That bit of your defence wins.  Case dismissed.

Scenario 3 - the invoice hasn't arrived within 14 days.  But in an appeal you have admitted to being the driver.  That bit of your defence fails.  They are allowed to sue you.  The case is decided on other points.

[lostthebrick]

I have emailed both Euro Garages and the MP for Stansted (Kemi Badendoch). 

I've received a response from the MP which is word-for-word the same as the response received by HONDA Z50 (October 2023) - see wording: (https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/462450-met-anpr-pcn-occupants-left-southgate-premises-appeal-refused-starbucksmcdonalds-southgate-park-stansted-airport-cm24-1py-cancelled-by-euro-garages/?do=findComment&comment=5230662) - post #44. 

Oh well, at least it's another complaint about MET Parking Services registered with the MP's office if nothing else.

I have also filed my MCOL defence submission today (per the template in an earlier post).

Now it's time to wait... but in the meantime I'm enjoying reading all the forum posts from other motorists who've also had issues with MET Parking Services and this car park in particular, and the great advice given, it's helping build my case.  I'll report back if there's any progress on my story.

 

[honeybee13]

Well done for doing the reading, it will stand you in good stead later. Shout if you have any questions. 

HB

[Nicky Boy]

Just Checking Brick,

You posted a draft defence on 21st Dec, but you've not confirmed that you've actually submitted it...?

(Only asking, 'cos it's been forgotten before... more than once!)

[dx100uk]

24 minutes ago, lostthebrick said:

I have also filed my MCOL defence submission today (per the template in an earlier post).

 

[Nicky Boy]

Doh!

[lostthebrick]

Had a follow up letter from CST Law relating to my CPR31-14 request, regarding the planning permission of signage:

"Our client have advised that it is not their responsibility to obtain any relevant planning permission for the signage.  It is the responsibility of the site owner to obtain advertising permission to put the signs up.

You will therefore need to contact the landlord for this information/evidence.

We recommend that you seek independent legal advice if you have any queries heron."

 

[dx100uk]

really...oh dear..met haven't got a clue.

can we see this letter please to PDF.

did they who the landowner is?

i suspect they said landowner not landlord too?

 

 

[lostthebrick]

Letter attached.

CSTLaw-17Jan24.pdf

[dx100uk]

yes says site owner and latterly landlord.

which is wrong on both front as the parking company must have planning permission granted by the relevant council not piggy back on the back of any previous permission granted to the landowner.

i think you may be able to help lots of people here.

write back and ask could they provide the contact details of the land owner and the landlord their clients parking contract is signed with.

 

[lookinforinfo]

The reason for the 14 day limit is that if Met fail to deliver in time they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. There are other errors that these rogue companies could make to also render the PCN not compliant.

It does mean that the driver is still responsible . On the upside it will be difficult to prove who was driving since so many people can legally drive your car.

 

[lostthebrick]

I have noted on MCOL that a DQ has been sent to me on the 01/02/2024, but nothing has been received through the post.  I have tried ringing them, but after 30 minutes on hold gave up.  Now emailed, but the auto response has said it may take 10-20 days to reply.

Question for the knowledgeable.  Are delays in receiving the DQ to be expected, even though the MCOL system states it's been sent?  Worried about the time frames to return the DQ, what are these normally, wouldn't want to become foul of a default judgement?  Should I download the online form from the Gov website and complete and return via email without receiving official form via post?

I've tried looking on this site, and the wider internet but apart from mentions of delays and backlogs, could not see anything about DQ's not received.

[AndyOrch]

Nothing to stop you preparing in advance then you are just waiting for the courts notification return date

[lostthebrick]

I've noted from the MCOL transactions screen that DQ's have been filed by both sides and that the claim has now been transferred to my local court as of the 18th of March. 

I await to receive a letter from the court detailing next steps, but in the meantime have been reading up on WS formats for defendants, and will post a draft for review soon.  

I noted this one was quite well written:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/page/3/#comments

but do any of the caggers here know of other ones to look at?

Any help where to look would be appreciated as I find the search function quite hard to use.