MET/DCBL ANPR PCN - occupants left site - (346) Southgate Park, Stansted. CM24 IPY

[QUAKER6]

Hello

i I have seen a number of posts regarding this site and the fact It is termed a ‘scam’. 

In this particular case the intention was to visit Starbucks however the loyalty app wasn’t loading (phone issue most likely)  a visit to McDonald’s was paid instead. 
we haven’t made any contact yet and I’ve seen you advise to first contact the Starbucks manager Alex Rayner. 

I have the following queries which I will really appreciate help with:

1. if we contact them with above explanation does that mean we’ll allude to the identity of the driver

2. if it’s still best to contact Starbucks first could you suggest appropriate wording so as not to disclose anything?

I know people have contacted Starbucks but I haven’t been able to perhaps find the relevant emails sent?

3 would you be willing to let us know how we can fill in the ‘sticky’ you refer to so I can give you more details re the ticket. 
In short however :

date of contravention Dec 20th 2023. Date of issue of notice 25th January 2024

 

thank you so much for your time. 

[honeybee13]

Hello, welcome to CAG.

I've moved your thread to our private parking forum, as the Starbucks/McDonalds car park isn't run by the local authority.

Here's a link to the sticky. The idea is that you copy and paste the questions from that into a post on this thread, then add your answers - preferably in red so they're easy to spot.

Best, HB

 

[QUAKER6]

Thank you very much for the welcome and for correcting the location of my thread.

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] 

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

1 Date of the infringement 20 December 2023

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 25 January 2024

[scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s

3 Date received we were away on holiday so only saw this on Feb 19th.

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? Many cctv images of a person walking out of car and then coming back to car with a McDonald’s bag

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] no

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up not applicable

7 Who is the parking company? Met parking

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate park cm24

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

POPLA 
 

PCN 20.21.24.pdf

Edited March 1 by Nicky Boy
Redacted PCN added

[lolerz]

Make sure you DO NOT appeal!

 

[FTMDave]

They don't know who was driving the vehicle.

They can use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act to go after the keeper instead, but only if their invoice gets to the keeper within 14 days ... and it didn't!

So you're in the clear.  There's very little they can really do although they will deforest the Amazon over the coming months with threats.

But get on to the CEO of Starbucks anyway.  There's no special wording.  Just lay it on thick about being a genuine and regular customer, explain what went wrong with the app, and that you didn't abuse the car park and left in a very short time.  Don't mention McDonald's and don't mention who was driving.  That's all.

This strategy worked a treat until a short time ago.  We think Starbucks have got sick of the number of mails, due to of course to the huge number of people being scammed.  But give it a go.

[lookinforinfo]

As long as you were not the sole occupant of the car then in your letter to Starbucks/McDonalds just use "the driver parked the car" not "I parked the car" so you don't reveal who was driving if it was you that should be fine. After writing the letter just check it to ensure that you hacen't inadvertently revealed the driver or post t here and we will give any advice needed.

I wouldn't get too worried as this is a well known scam site and Met tend rarely to go to Court since they would probably get hammered. besides they make thousands from the poor dupes who pay up rather than fight.

[Nicky Boy]

Just post up what you propose to send to 'Bucks first, so the team can have a quick look.

[Homer67]

Isn't the NTK way out of time to create keeper liability or have I missed something?

[lolerz]

Yes but it's part of Airport Bye-laws and as such the keeper isn't liable anyway

[Nicky Boy]

Yes Homer,

We finally sussed that on other threads.

So they are now stuck with identifying the driver... Fat chance!

[QUAKER6]

Thank you all so much for your responses. 

I will draft an email to Starbucks in the next two days and post on here for your kind review. 

@FTMDave - I wanted to see if I understand you correctly

- when you say ‘’but only if their invoice gets to the keeper within 14 days ... and it didn't’’

- is that timeframe determined by the date of infringement and the date of issue of notice as per The letter (as opposed to the date I have received it).

I.e if the date of infringement was 20th December and say - the date of issue of notice was 27th December would that mean they had done it in time - I’m asking just for my understanding. 

Also @lookinforinfo

- there was only one occupant of the car in fact (the driver) and as far as I’ve read on the forum I should not say misleading things

- I.e suggesting there were more occupants.

I’ll imagine the best course it to try to draft a non-revealing email to Alex which is also factually accurate?

Thank you! 

[FTMDave]

On 28/02/2024 at 14:14, QUAKER6 said:

1 Date of the infringement 20 December 2023

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 25 January 2024

So is this accurate?

[lookinforinfo]

 

I am pleased that the one occupant was the driver.

[Nicky Boy]

8 hours ago, FTMDave said:

1 Date of the infringement 20 December 2023

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 25 January 2024

 

8 hours ago, FTMDave said:

So is this accurate?

Dave,

The PCN is now redacted and uploaded to post 3.

Yes, the dates are accurate, but it's a bit academic as MET have not tried to invoke POFA at all. (They obviously know that it's covered by airport  bye-laws).

So they're definitely stuck with chasing only the driver. Yay!

[Nicky Boy]

Quaker,

Have you been and downloaded their photographoic evidence?

Upload please...

[FTMDave]

Nick, I was querying why the OP was quoting 20 December and 27 December when the dates on the invoice were very different.

Now I'm more awake I realise the OP was just coming out with an example!

So yes.  Hypothetically.  "Offence" 20 December.  Invoice dated 27 December.  IIRC taken to arrive on 29 December.  Within the POFA 14 days.

In this case.  "Offence" 20 December.  Invoice dated 25 January.  IIRC taken to arrive on 27 January.  Way, way beyond the POFA 14 days.  Get lost MET!

[lookinforinfo]

If you want, post up your letter before posting and we can advise if anything obvious should be added or subtracted to give you the best chance of a successful outcome.

[QUAKER6]

Again, thank you all for your help so far. Please could you let me know what you think of below. 
 

Dear Mr. Rayner,

I write to you with regards to parking charge notice Reference Xxxxxx issued on December 20th 2023 for vehicle XXX. 

The vehicle had been parked at Southgate park CM24 with the intention of its occupants visiting Starbucks. As their loyalty app was not loading however, after a few attempts and a short stay, the vehicle left the park. 

Subsequently this parking charge notice had been received. 

As the intention of the visit had been genuine I would be grateful if you could please cancel out the above PCN and delete any personal /or otherwise/ records associated with it. 

 

Thank you

Kind Regards

[FTMDave]

It's Ms Rayner.

[Nicky Boy]

Looks OK to me. 

[FTMDave]

And to me except the Ms Rayner bit.

[QUAKER6]

Thank you both very much. I’ll change to Ms as opposed to Mr and send away now. I’ll keep you updated

[Nicky Boy]

On 01/03/2024 at 09:30, Nicky Boy said:

Quaker,

Have you been and downloaded their photographoic evidence?

Upload please...

 

[QUAKER6]

Hi Nicky Boy

theres 15 separate photos from cctv timed between 14.03h to 14.14h showing the car parking, the driver walking out and then coming back with a paper bag and going in the car essentially.

Is there anything in particular that I can upload or answer a question about from The pics.

As i say, theres 15 and I’d have to open every single one and screenshot then convert the 15 pdf, save again and then merge.

I’m only working from a phone so of course I can do it but just checking if there’s anything in particular. 

again, I appreciate your time and help. 

[Nicky Boy]

Never mind Quaker,

like you say, it's a fair bit of messing about.