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

[honeybee13]

You could have a trawl through the Parking Successes forum here, starting with the most recent. Most people there will have done WSs.

HB

[Nicky Boy]

That one looks OK to me.

More important is the content and for that, a read through your own thread often throws things up from comments made by others.

Dave will probably suggest a few headings later tonight. He's a hard working chap during the day.

One thing that I've spotted with a quick review is that their POC does not mention anywhere that the defendant was the keeper of the vehicle at the time. (In fact everything BUT!)

This alone means that they can only take action against the driver, and I don't think you've told them who that was?

Sorry cross posted with HB.

Here's a link to the successes forum...

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347084-ppc-successes-no-questions-please/page/17/#comment-5251318

 

[wisniawy]

I really hope mate they drop it before it goes to actual hearing as it is not sustainable for them to pay solicitors to try to win odd 300£ off of you .

I still have no idea why they drop mine.

With your knowledge and the fact there was never any mention of driver compliance I am pretty confident there is no way they can achieve anything anyway . 

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, lostthebrick said:

have been reading up on WS formats for defendants, and will post a draft for review soon. 

Well done on wanting to get a WS draft done so early.

I will indeed pop in with suggestions when I knock off work.

[FTMDave]

OK, after reading from the start, your sections need to be.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - a brief description of your stay in the car park, your visit to both Starbucks and McDonald's, your attempt to respect the T&Cs, your being a genuine customer, your getting the PCN, etc.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY - MET haven't even tried to follow the times stipulated in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.  The judge should throw the case out on this point alone.  Add that POFA deals with "relevant land", which South Gate Park is not as it is covered by airport bye-laws, and you put the Claimant to strict proof that it is a non bye-law area.  Add Nick's point three posts above.

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE - their rubbish signage as you pointed out in post 28.

BREACH OF CODE OF PRACTICE - the BPA CoP (para 9.5) prohibits predatory behaviour, yet this is what MET are doing.  There is only one entrance and one exit to the whole Starbucks-McDonald's-whatever else is there area.  A motorist presumes it is one car park.  They do not notice the invisible line dividing South Gate Park car park from McDonald's car park because it is invisible.  MET's behaviour has been shown up as a scam in the national press and on national TV.  They have done nothing to make it clear to motorists that here are two car parks despite having years to do so because the whole point of their operation is predatory behaviour, to entrap motorists.  You go into the ins and outs here in post 28.

NO LOCUS STANDI - any holes you can find in their contract.  LFI has started in post 32.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE - they don't have planning permission which is a criminal offence.  You can ridicule CST Law's excuses.

ABUSE OF PROCESS - the Unicorn Food Tax the PPCs add in every case.  This section is standard in all WSs.

Edited March 21 by FTMDave
Typo

[lostthebrick]

Thanks FTMDave (and others).  This is really helping draft a knock-out WS.

I'll work on it over the next few days and look to post something for your review/critique probably later next week, assuming the they still want to proceed with this nonsense.  

[lookinforinfo]

RE Illegal Signage and the CST letter.

a] neither they nor Met have said they don't need planning permission

b] neither they nor Met have admitted they do have pp

c] regardless [or irregardless as my son annoying says] of the lack of pp and where the responsibility in obtaining it , until the pp is in place, the signs should not have been erected. So they signs are there illegally, not unlawfully, so therefore a criminal offence.

Although the Government Private Parking Code of Practice is not in force as yet the Government did ask the private parking community to bring into use as much of the Act as possible prior to it going into practice. It would appear that MET have turned a blind eye to the Act even when  there is already legislation in place .I am referring to  Town and Country Planning  [Control of Advertisements ] Regulations 1992. I know the private parking companies do not like Regulations to get in the way of them making money  but over 30 years to get this right and still haven't.

The IPC Code of Practice V9 states "25.1 The Code complements the relevant legislation and related guidance, which will define the overall standard of conduct for all Operators. Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses."

As Met has therefore failed to comply with 25.1 it should mean that they are unable to receive data from the DVLA

As further proof of Met's unwillingness to implement the new Act I refer to

3.2 Signs and surface markings – adjoining parking premises

Where different terms and conditions apply to adjoining stretches of controlled land where there is no physical segregation, signs and/or surface markings must be used by the parking operator within the controlled land for which they are responsible to delineate clearly between these premises and alert drivers to the terms and conditions applying.

You would have expected  that Met would have already amended the signage at the two adjoining car parks in Stansted since they have caused so much confusion that there was a video issued on youtube.com  

Joe Lycett CHALLENGES Met Parking's Tickets at Confusing Car Parks | Joe Lycett's Got Your Back

Channel 4 Entertainment

If you include all that above, I doubt that Met will have the gonads to go to Court .

2.18M subscribers

[lostthebrick]

Well good news arrived in the post today...  they chickened out of continuing their claim against me. 

I didn't think they had much of a leg to stand on, especially after reading the posts on here. 

I've attached the notice. 

I'll pop a small donation to your site,

thank you for everyones help and encouragement.  

NoticeofDiscontinuance.pdf

[dx100uk]

well done 

thread title updated.

donation 

we are free

we don't get paid

but try telling our ISP Provider or server hosts that

dx

 

[Nicky Boy]

Congratulations!

[wisniawy]

Well done !! 
 

Same as me great result ! I just wonder why they carry on additional month with you as they knew it’s not gonna get them anywhere 

 

it’s a double victory!! I wish we could all meet and have a pint 

 

 

[lostthebrick]

I believe their whole plan is that people will not want the hassle of a court claim or fall foul of a default CCJ for missing a deadline.  They never plan on going through with the court case.  I read somewhere that they have a 90% success rate with this tactic.

This site was amazing for their help.

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[lookinforinfo]

I expect you are sorry you didn't get your day in Court.

It is always a good result when you don't even have to go to Court to get your win. Great result. And thanks for your donation. This Forum helps so many people who have problems not just with the parking rogues so it is important that they are able to continue  their work through the financial help of members like yourself.