MET/QDR/dcbl PCN PAPLOC - out of bay - 7 mins stop - The Brewery, Romford

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 1 The date of infringement? 07-June-2021
 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] No 

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] TBC – I need to check with the Keeper when the original NTK was received. 

What date is on it? TBC
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? TBC but from memory to Keeper thinks not.
 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] TBC
 

did you appeal No appeal made
 

5 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services Limited (ZZPS Limited is referenced as well in QDR letter)
 

6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? The Brewery, Romford

I'm helping the Registered Keeper of the vehicle as they vulnerable and was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the ticket being issued. 

Key points:

• The Brewery car park is barrier controlled with a car parking ticket issued on entry and has to be paid to enable exit via the exit barrier. 
• Temporary click and collect bays were created as part of the response to the pandemic.
• The driver parked in the click and collect bay to collect an order.
• The parking attendant was not dressed in uniform and did not engage the driver, the ticket was attached to the vehicle the parking attendant ran off.
• The driver paid for the parking to exit the car park.
• The QDR correspondence stopped on the 02-Dec-2021.
• Letters started being received again by the Keeper on the 05-Sep-2023, 21 months later.
• Letter of claim received on the 13-Dec-2023. 

Should I prepare a snotty letter for the registered keeper asap? 

Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

I will try to locate the original NTK but I have attached all correspondence I've collected from the Registered Keeper to date. 

Apologies for any errors in the post.

JK

 

 

MET Parking - QDR - DCBL PCN v2.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

4 minutes ago, JEDIKNIGHTS said:

Should I prepare a snotty letter for the registered keeper asap? 

Sounds good.

Please upload it for entry into our "Snotty Letter Of The Year" award.

(Just joking about the award BTW).

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

Thanks Nicky Boy.

I've used a previous snotty letter and updated the details, see attached.

I don't have any names to address the letter to at dcb legal, does anyone have names?

Should I send for information to MET Parking?

JK

dcb legal Ltd

Direct House

Greenwood Drive

Manor Park Runcorn

Cheshire

WA7 1UG

 

Your Ref: 119720.18679D

Your Client: MET Parking Services Ltd

 

3rd January 2024

Dear DCB Legal,

Cheers for your LETTER OF CLAIM.

I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the thought that you actually reckoned I'd take such tripe seriously and cough up!

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why MET Parking Services Ltd CLAIM is utter pants.

But then again as you are too bone idle to do any due diligence maybe I know, and you don't know 'cos you're too lazy to know.

Anyway, your client can either drop this foolishness or I will enjoy giving them a good hiding in court and spending the unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on a nice winter holiday while all the time having a good laugh at your client's expense.

I look forward to your deafening silence.

Yours,

 

COPIED TO MET PARKING SERVICES LTD

 

 

I've looked up dcb Legal on Companies House, the contacts are:

Jamie Ashford, Darren Connor, Gary Robinson

MET Parking Services has David Bailey and David Marks listed. 

I've updated the attached snotty letter with the dcb Legal contact names.

Hope it's ok listing the names.

Can you advise if this is suitable for sending please? 

Thanks JK

Hi,

the Registered Keeper has located the NTK and 2 follow up letters. I've updated the questions and included the NTK and 2 letters with the previously shared letters in the attached PDF.

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 1 The date of infringement? 07-June-2021
 2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] No
 Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] Yes
 What date is on it? 07-July-2021
 Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Yes but limited view. Have not attempted to access the MET Parking viewer.
3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] No
 4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,...No appeal made
 5 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services Limited (ZZPS Limited is referenced as well in QDR letter)
 6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? The Brewery, Romford

 

[dx100uk]

thread tidied 

thread title updated

corrected mass pdf in post 1 now.

[FTMDave]

MET are having a laugh - a stay of only 7 minutes and in the click and collect bay to boot!

There is a 5-minute consideration period to read the signs and a 10-minute grace period to leave the car park for a start.

Well done on the snotty letter.  Invest in two 2nd class stamps and get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office.

 

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

Thanks FTMDave.

These were temporary click and collect bays created as click and collecting ordering was being encouraged during the pandemic. The area is normally restricted parking so only temporary signs were in place.

The other point was that the driver paid for the parking otherwise wouldn’t have been able to exit the car park due to it being barrier controlled.

Should I address the snotty letter to dcb legal or Jamie/Darren/Gary?
 

[FTMDave]

I would go for Jamie & Darren & Gaz.

It will (a) show you've done your research and aren't frightened of them, and (b) also be fun!

[FTMDave]

9 minutes ago, JEDIKNIGHTS said:

The area is normally restricted parking so only temporary signs were in place.

Did your friend get any photos of these temporary signs?

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

Unfortunately no photos taken but I will check if there’s any historical record on the web. 
I did consider checking the MET parking photos but I thought MET would then have a record of the access and I wasn’t sure if this would have a negative impact.

[Nicky Boy]

Just looking at the pic on the PCN.

From the floor markings, it looks suspiciously like the car is in a "pick up only" bay...

[Nicky Boy]

In fact...

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5754108,0.1801207,3a,75y,37.66h,74.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJT4GcHhke9VUcdBiB8wy0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

It's the EXACT spot! (look at the adverts on the wall...)

[dx100uk]

yep a pick up point. whatever that means.

unless there are any signs at that pickup point, that state its purpose.

and the driver paid on exit.

On 03/01/2024 at 13:27, JEDIKNIGHTS said:

The driver paid for the parking to exit the car park.

PCN issue reason: out of bay

so is saying not parked in a PARKING bay.

they are stuffed!

let it goto court and get them for expenses and lost wages?

 

[FTMDave]

Is there no limit to your detective skills Nick? 

[Nicky Boy]

Elementary, my dear Watson... errr, Dave.

[Nicky Boy]

I just keep hoping that a really annoyed user will go for a GDPR claim...

Looks like this may be prime fodder for one. Absolutely NO reason to obtain keeper details.

[FTMDave]

Great minds Nick ...

[FTMDave]

Jedi - if there is any reply to the snotty letter please come back here.

If there is no reply after a month please come back here anyway and we can see what possibilities your friend has to hammer MET for a GDPR breach.

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

Thank you all for your help to date. 

My friend received a response from dcb legal on Friday even though the letter is dated 17th January. 

Surely the response should have been court papers rather than sending a mammoth list of photos repeating everything shared previously. 

Any guidance is greatly appreciated. 

JK

 

dcbl legal letter 17 January 2024.compressed.pdf

[FTMDave]

Well, we're all agreed then - following DCBL's letter - the vehicle was in a pick-up only zone. 

That might be because, er, the driver was picking something up.

The reason there are photos rather than court papers is because the other side know their case is pants.

So a question for your mate.  He/she did nowt wrong.  There was no justification whatsoever for MET accessing his/her personal data from the DVLA.  He/she can easily sue MET for distress caused by breach of GDPR.  Is that a road your mate is interested in going down?  If so, let us know.  If your friend does want to take revenge on MET then clearly they will have to come here and take charge of the case themselves, not use intermediaries.

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

Thank you FTMDave. 

I will make the call tomorrow and advise the outcome. If it was me I wouldn't hesitate in taking my revenge.

[Nicky Boy]

I love their pics of an empty parking bay...

[FTMDave]

Someone's finally got off the beach and deigned to join us

[lookinforinfo]

Jopson v Homeguard springs to mind here. The vehicle was not parked. It was in the pickup area. I doubt that any of their signs have "Out of Bay"  [whatever that means] appears on their signs. The signs may well say that cars have to be parked with the lines or even the bay, but that  is referring to the car bays, not the pickup point where vehicles are only stopping for a few minutes. It's not a situation where a vehicle could be parked for a couple of hours straddling two bays and preventing another car to be parked alongside. In the second incident one could accept that  UKPC had a legitimate interest in issuing a PCN. But for 7 minutes it would be more likely to be a penalty and thus the PCN  could be cancelled.

Their PCN isn't quite compliant as it misses out the words in parentheses on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 sectoin 9 [2][f]  ..."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; "

This should mean that the keeper is no longer liable for the charge only the driver is now liable. Might be worth checking if the keeper and the driver are the same person since if not, then the case could end if the Judge accepts that the missing words invalidates the PCN by removing the Keeper liability.

There was a case here a few years ago when one of our caggers won their case on that same feature alone.

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

I can confirm the driver was not the registered keeper.

I’m still waiting for the registered owner to advise whether they want to challenge MET on the potential GDPR breach. 

[JEDIKNIGHTS]

Hi, 

My friend has received a claim form from the County Court today, dated 23rd February. 

I've attached a PDF of the Claim Form. 

Can you provide direction on next steps please? 

My friend didn't want the hassle of claiming for the potential GDPR breach but this may change that position depending on your guidance. 

County Court - Claim Form - The Brewery.pdf