Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • old and new threads merged i though you were going to send the SB letter in 2017? dx  
    • dunno you've not scanned up what you've had before how can we tell?  
    • Today , after a lot of years i received a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we haven't had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. up to 2000 I had successfully gotten deferment on low income. But rather than sign on as unemployed ,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondence ceased from them, circa 2001. To date I have had no correspondence from Student Loans. I was made redundant in 2009 and reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now , today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
  • 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 
      • 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 CCTV PCN - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY


Recommended Posts

1 Date of the infringement 14th April 2024

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 17th April 2024

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

3 Date received 20th April 2024

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? ANPR photos of vehicle in and out (although as they were taken at night they don’t show much).

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  N

7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Independent Appeals Service POPLA  - BPA Logo is on NTK

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here. N/A

Hi,

As keeper, I have received a PNC from MET Parking over the vehicle being parked in the infamous Stansted Starbucks/Mcdonald’s car park(s).

The vehicle was parked outside Starbucks (at night, when it was closed) and the driver went into Mcdonalds. However, the driver wishes to appeal due to the poor and misleading unlit signage, and believes that this PNC is unfair. I am sure you are aware of this company/car park, and I would appreciate any advice on this matter.

Kind regards

PNC 14.04.2024.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for filling in the sticky and uploading the PCN straight away - we wish everyone who comes here would do that!

You refer to the site as "infamous".  You're right.  It's a scam site.  It's been exposed as a scam site in the national press and on national TV.

There's no point appealing.  You'd be appealing to the very people who set up the scam!

We have around 130 cases for this site.  In not one have MET dared pursue the Cagger all the way to a court hearing.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

The PCN does not comply with the protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. because it is within the airport boundary and subject to Bye Laws. Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge so only the driver is now liable. As they do not know who was driving they are going to  struggle. so do not help them by appealing.

Also as Starbucks was closed by charging £100 that is a penalty since Met has no legitimate interest in pursuing the charge.. As it is a penalty the case would be thrown out should it get as far as Court. 

Met make a fortune from those who blindly pay so there is no need to risk Court.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET CCTV PNC - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

Many thanks for the replies and advice!

I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

alex.rayner@starbucks.com

heather.christie@eg.group

Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site

Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,

I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).

Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd

Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX

Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX

Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX

Time: XX:XX - XX:XX

After a little research it appears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.

It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a dubious and predatory car park management company.

In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.

It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.

Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.

However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice as I understand you have kindly done in similar cases in the past.

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your letter is superb.

A couple of months ago it would have led to instant victory.

The problem is that since then there has been a tsunami of these cases and Starbucks have got fed up.

However. nothing ventured ...

I've made a little addition in red above so they know that you know that they have the power to intervene and have done so numerous times in the past.

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

2 hours ago, Hikertrash said:

Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.

However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Not sure whether this should be included?

It may get back to MET and tip them off to something you may use in a WS further down the line.

  • Like 1
  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed.

and the letter needs spellchecking !!

done it now for you. 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all,

Many thanks for the advice!

Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…

 

Starbucks UK Customer Care <starbucksuk@service-now.com>

Hi xxxxxx,

We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store.

Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received.

If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to cs@metparking.com, who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions:

• Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies.

• The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site.

• If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours

• To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge.

• If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site.

• If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site

Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter. 

Kind Regards, 

Lora K 

Customer Care Team Leader

Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly Starbucks have taken this line over the last couple of months after initially being cooperative.

Just sit on your hands now - but make sure to come back here if MET ever send a Letter of Claim.

We have over 130 cases for this site.  MET have only done court seven times.  Even then, they have never had the bottle to continue till the court hearing.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

13 hours ago, Hikertrash said:

• Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies.

• The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site.

• If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours

• To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge.

• If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site.

• If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site

Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be worth while to appeal in order to obtain the POPLA reference?
I know the appeal to MET will not be successful but surely an appeal through POPLA could be?

The first clearly visible sign as you pull in to the car park states “McDonald’s Customers Only 60 minutes”

The next clearly visible sign is an almost identical sign outside Starbucks which states “60 minutes free stay for customers only”

There are other signs towards the rear of the car park (away from the outlets) that have the terms and conditions on them in very small print.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hikertrash said:

I know the appeal to MET will not be successful but surely an appeal through POPLA could be?

Well, it's up to you.

Years & years & years ago the forum used to suggest appealing to POPLA, but then AFAIK POPLA's remit was changed and it became much more biased in favour of the PPCs.

One of the problems with taking that route is that the onus will fall on you to prove your appeal, while if you do nothing the onus is on MET to start legal action which experience teaches they are very, very reluctant to do.

If you go down the POPLA route I would think your ace would be insufficient signage.  Are you able to go back there and get photos of their rubbish, entrapping signs?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 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

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET CCTV PCN - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

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...