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

[QUAKER6]

Hello

after to and fro between Starbucks and eurogarages not responding

Starbucks finally sent another email to Eurogarages (SB said they can’t do anything about this) and below is response from Eurogarages received March 27.

Also before I paste the response I received the first chaser letter from a debt collection agency. Is your advice to ignore?

thank you.

Below is response:

Good morning Xxxxxxxxx,

Sorry to hear you received a parking charge In Southgate carpark at Stansted.

I have emailed MET parking Ltd on your behalf to request cancellation.

I regret to inform you that we, as Starbucks- Euro garages, neither own, operate, nor benefit from the charges imposed by MET parking.

It’s important to note that the parking facilities for McDonald’s and Starbucks are separate, and we have no control over the decisions

Made by MET parking.

None the less I have requested cancellation- once I have a response from them I will be in touch.

If you require anything further please do not hesitate to reach out.

Many thanks,

Heather Anne Christie  ‑  Starbucks Area Manager FTG Area/Regionals [email protected] EG Corporate Services Waterside, Haslingden Road, Blackburn, BB1 2FA, UK

[FTMDave]

That's a positive move from Euro Garages.  Fingers crossed.

Ignore any debt collection rubbish - the letter is from a third party that has nothing to do with the dispute and has no power.

Because of the tsunami of threads on CAG for this car park I did some searching and some maths.

We have about 120 threads, obviously Caggers always refuse to pay - and MET have done court just six times.  So about 5%.

One one occasion sadly the Cagger didn't file a defence so MET won by default.

Two cases are ongoing.

With one case the judge looked at the horrible Particulars of Claim months before a hearing would have happened and struck out the claim.

On two occasions, when the case got near Witness Statement stage, MET wet themselves and gave in.

 

 

[QUAKER6]

Hi

Just Received a response from eurogarages as below

also received another chaser from met and another from debt recovery plus…

What are your thoughts

any help appreciated- 

 

Good morning, 

I have had a response from MET this morning. 

MET have confirmed they will not be cancelling the charge this is because you parked in the carpark and went over to McDonalds. 

Unfortunately there is nothing further that I can do and any further contact will need to go directly to [email protected] 

Many thanks,

Heather Anne Christie  ‑  Starbucks Area Manager FTG Area/Regionals [email protected]

[lolerz]

ignore DR+ Completely.

Only letter that matters is a letter of claim. If you get one, come back here.

I think you need to go back to Starbucks and say that MET should do what Starbucks wants as they're the client.

[lookinforinfo]

Yes you did breach the rules in a scam car park that so many other people have done. So it is not the motorists at fault, it is the way the car park is designed and sign posted-obviously very badly. The number of people you see on this Forum who have been caught out is just the tip of the iceberg.  Unfortunately so many motorists pay up . Hopefully that means that the greedy scrotes may decide not to go to Court in case their scam is revealed to the public and that may stop their profit generating system.

The reason that these rogues can charge £100 for such a breach is because it was decided by a group of Judges on appeal , that though £100  charge could be considered a penalty, because the rogues had a legitimate interest in making sure that their car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying was deemed as not being a penalty.

However when the shop or store is closed, there is no legitimate interest and so £100 is a penalty and the Courts will throw out any case that is a penalty. So relax. 

Edited April 22 by lookinforinfo

[QUAKER6]

Hi Lookingforinfo

thanks for your response

just to say - store wasn’t closed. 

I believe the only thing this fine can be overthrown on is that they didn’t notify the owner within 14 days therefore the owner is not obliged to name the driver..?

 

[dx100uk]

37 minutes ago, QUAKER6 said:

I believe the only thing this fine can be overthrown on is that they didn’t notify the owner within 14 days therefore the owner is not obliged to name the driver..?

it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand

no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything.

Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter

hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do).

Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS.

Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves.

10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either.

the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get.

.............

also there is no such things as the OWNER in private Parking Speculative Invoice 

its the REgistered Keeper on the cars V5C.

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Hang on - what do you mean by "overthrown"?

Two different parties have two different opinions.  MET reckon you owe this money.  You reckon you don't.  Er - that's it.

The only way you can be forced to pay this money is if you're ordered to by an unbiased judge after MET have argued their case in curt.  As explained above, so far MET have been prepared to do this ... never.

[QUAKER6]

Hello everyone

again thanks for your time and reassurance 

I didn’t realise DCAs dont have quite so much standing. 
I will certainly keep you posted

i did try to email Starbucks back to re-iterate that as the customer had genuine intent, I believe the parking ticket should be cancelled but should probably chase as no response

[dx100uk]

6 hours ago, QUAKER6 said:

I didn’t realise DCAs dont have quite so much standing. 

eh?

they have ZERO standing nor any legal powers on ANY debt.

they are NOT BAILIFFS.

dx