Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

MET Parking Services - Notice to Keeper - (346) Southgate Rd, Stansted, CM24 1PY

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi everyone,

I has the pleasure this morning of receiving the attached NTK from "MET Parking Services Ltd" regarding the now infamous Starbucks car park near Stansted Airport. Obviously it is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it was sent more than 14 days after the alleged contravention. 

I have seen on various other forums that people have been successfully appealing these via POPLA -- is this worth doing or should I just ignore and keep an eye out for any subsequent letter of claim?


  1. Date of the infringement 02/03/2024
  2. Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 09/04/2024 
  3. Date received 12/04/2024
  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? Yes
  6. Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No
  7. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A - not appealed
  8. Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services
  9. Where exactly [carpark name and town] (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY
  10. For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA/POPLA

Thank you in advance for your help.

Met Parking Services NTK 09-04-2024.pdf

Edited by lolerz
Removed MSE link.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gigantictortoise369 (excellent name, I might add)

Welcome to CAG.

This is a well-known scam site to us. It's even been on the TV with Joe Lycett claiming how much of a scam it is!


Not only is their NTK well out of date for any keeper liability but it doesn't mention POFA at all. This means that only the driver is liable. Simply don't say who the driver is to anyone; you'll have protection as keeper then.

Get reading up on here, standard procedure is to contact Starbucks and Euro Garages to get the charge removed.

Ignore the deforestation MET sends you *until/unless* you get a Letter of Claim. Then come back here. MET have tried court here a couple of times, but they've either been struck out by the courts or MET has discontinued the claim. Only once has there been a CCJ awarded and that's because the OP ignored court papers and got a court judgement before coming here.

Get reading up on other threads, type the address in and you'll see loads of threads about this site. You'll find information about contacting Euro Garages etc to start your method of attack.

  • Like 2

We could do with some help from you.



Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been developments today on Quaker6's thread re Starbucks/EuroGarages.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From what I've learnt so far, the NTK sort of complies with PoFA Section 9[2][e] but, as far as I can see does not comply at all with

Section 9[2][f]

Which means they do not have the right to recover from the keeper.

Unless anyone can tell me I'm wrong?

Edited by anotheruser0000
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all,


Thank you for your advice.

Following the recent developments surrounding the appeal route via Starbucks/Euro Garages, I have not pursued this route.

Following my original post I have since received a "PARKING CHARGE FINAL REMINDER" but will just proceed to ignore this as is my right to do so.

It is helpful to upload this for others to see?

As the registered keeper, I am happy that I am not liable for the parking charge as the notice has not been served in accordance with Schedule 4 of POFA: specifically paragraph 9(2)(f) (warning to registered keeper that creditor has the right to recover from the keeper) and paragraph 9(4) (serving notice within 14 days of alleged contravention).

I look forward to seeing MET Parking Services in court :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We see quite a lot of our members receive a series of "Final Notices" . WE assume that it is to put the fear of God into you but after three or four it becomes a bit of a joke . But it is up to them if they want to waste time and money sending them out it is their prerogative.

Maybe they themselves don't know what to do .  They have the choices of giving up, keep writing less and less scary letters or go to Court and become a laughing stock.  Anyone with even  half a brain would know what to do. Sadly Met doesn't seem to have anyone there who quite makes the half brain criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...