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 
      • 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 - occupants left car park - Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

Recommended Posts


Please help, as today I received a letter re. debt recovery. 

Is there anything I can do at this stage?

The driver fell foul of the confusing car parking situation re. Starbucks and McDonald's.

1 Date of the infringement 13/02/24

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 5/3/24

3 Date received 7/3/24

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? CCTV photos

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

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

7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services

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

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

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here 

Final reminder on 9/4/24 & Debt Recovery letter dated 30/4/24



2024-05-05 MET NTK for PCN 2024-02-13.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to CAG.

Thank you for the information, we can start looking at your case now.

If you were thinking of doing it, please don't appeal, it causes more problems than it solves because Met and other PPCs almost never allow appeals.

DR+ can't do anything to you because they're debt collectors, just part of the letter trail. If it ever went to court it would be Met doing it, or their lawyers.

If you have a look around the forum, you'll see we have dozens of threads about the Stansted car park. Read some threads and you'll see how these outfits work.

Best, HB

  • Like 2

Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Debt recovery letter Stansted SouthgateMET CCTV PCN - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY
  • dx100uk changed the title to MET CCTV PCN - occupants left car park - Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

PDF sorted thread title updated

don't do anything till/if you ever receive a letter of claim.

100's of threads on this carpark here

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF - ignore them.



  • Like 2

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

They sent their bilge out far too late to establish keeper liability.

You're in the clear.

Simply ignore them until you get a Letter of Claim.

This is a scam site.  It's been shown up to be a scam site in the national press and on national TV.  MET don't want their scam to be exposed in court so they huff & puff but then bottle it when it comes to doing court or not.

We have around 140 cases here.  MET have started court claims only seven times, and even then it was a tactic to see if the motorist was terrified of going to court and would give in.  When the Caggers defended, MET discontinued the cases.

But make sure to come back here if you get a Letter of Claim.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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

As Dave has already said they sent out their PCN too late  That means that Met can no longer pursue the keeper as the charge cannot be transferred from the driver now to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable to pay so it is best not to appeal so Met cannot glean from the appeal who may have been driving.

  • Thanks 1
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...