Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Lets draw a line under this. I'm not saying I won't upload documents to this site Consumer Action Group, and I'm not saying that I take issue with with CAG data security. I said, "Can you recommend a free offline pdf editor" this is so I can merge the pdf's into one file as requested. Online utilities can be helpful, but we only have their word that they shall delete the uploaded documents in a given timeframe, but have no means of validating this, neither can we confirm that their security is up to scratch, if they were hacked and they weren't deleting as they claimed, then- And so, as I do not wish to upload my documents to a free online pdf merge utility, and that bona fide tools such as Adobe quite rightly aren't free, and you have a maximum upload of 4.88MB, I offered my website - a source that I can control as a viable alternative. From there we seem to have descended into a chaos of misunderstandings and half-truths
    • We have both a savings account and a current account, so thought we would get the £100 fairer share bonus - but we won't. Why?View the full article
    • wont go near it with a barge pole as its ex gov't debt.  
    • Thanks, I've had my fill of this lot. What makes me so mad is that I had to take out student loan to get any DHSS help. And then when I tried to help myself and family they presented obstacles. Might be worth passing story to RIP off Britain?
    • there is NO exposure if you simple remove your name address/ref numbers etc from docs, over 10'000 pdf uploads are here. which then harvests IP addresses off of the people that then do so..which is why we do not allow hosting sites. read our rules and upload carefully thats exactly why we say capture as JPG, redact, then convert/merge to one mass PDF. then online sites to achieve that we list do not leave watermarks.  every once in a while we have a user like you that thinks they know better...we've been doing it since 2006 with not one security issue. thank you.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 CM24 1PY

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Can ii get advice on this PCN received at the services near stansted airport.

Picked someone up at night and went to grab coffee and snack in mc Ds, and didnt realise there was zones in this car park, it was late dark and pouring with rain so obvious u see the large 60mins parking free and dont stand around reading everything.

My son and his mother were in the back of car still as he was sleeping.

Ticket appears to be from CCTV camera


should i appeal, then see what they say (assume it will be rejected) then go to POPLA,


Thanks in advance



1 Date of the infringement 28/4/24

2 Date of issue  30/4/24 (says 14 days from date of letter)

3 Date received 4/5/23

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? pic car and n0 plate

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Not yet

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     (parked on starbucks side which was shut)

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

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here   No other correspondence




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to CAG.

Thank you for the information. To answer your question, we don't recommend appealing at all. It will be a waste of your time and you could end up outing the driver.

Ask any questions that you have but basically you keep an eye on this, keep the correspondence and if MET ever they send a Letter Before Claim/Action. If you get to that stage, we'll suggest being proactive.

Best, HB

EDIT: Could we see the other side of the PCN please? Sometimes there is information that they've left off.

Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't appeal.

This is a well known scam site to us. It's even been exposed on national TV by Joe Lycett!

The traditional route was that we'd push Starbucks to cancel the PCN but that hasn't been working as of late.

You've got 2 options:

1. Pay the £60 and the matter goes away.

2. Ignore them and engage with us.

We'd rather you choose option 2. We'll be with you every step of the way.

The good news is that MET rarely goes to court with this, providing you engage with us properly. The times they have is when people have either come to us late or have ignored our advice. Many times, once defended properly with our advice, they claims are either discontinued by MET or struck out by the courts.

Get reading up by using the search feature and searching "Southgate Park", go see how many cases we have here of this scam site, get used to the process. Get reading at least 20+ threads

  • 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

As it clearly states in their missive, the DRIVER is liable to pay the unicorn tax.

It isn't POFA compliant, don't appeal. they can only chase the driver and unless you out yourself by appealing, then there's nothing they can do to identify the driver.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!



Link to post
Share on other sites

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

thanks for the reply

I'll heed all the advise.  As much as I want to give them a piece of my mind and appeal, I wait and see how this progresses, I'm sure as u said the appeal whatever i say will be rejected.

Its amazing how this car park is allowed to get away with it and how starbucks and mc Ds allow it


Will keep you all posted,

tahnks again

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Met are out of order in this new version of their PCN. They show your car arriving and leaving via the ANPR cameras. They then go on to describe this as the parking period knowing full well that since your car still has to drive to a parking space and later drive from the parking space to the exit. How this can be described as a parking period with so much driving involved is beyond me.



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

You will probably get a couple more reminders followed by further demands fro unregulated debt collectors with even increasing amounts to pay. They are all designed to scare you into paying.  Don't.

It's a scam site and they do not know who was driving and they know the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. Also the shop was closed so they have no legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear. So to charge £100 is a penalty as there is no legitimate interest which means that the case would be thrown out if it went to Court. 

Keep your money in your wallet and be prepared to ignore all their letters and threats. Doubtful they would go to Court since a lot more people would not pay when they heard  MET lost in Court. However they may just send you a Letter of Claim to test your resolve. 

If yoy get one of those, come back to us and we will advise a snotty letter to send them. 

You probably already have, but take a look through some of our past Met PCNs to see how they are doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the tsunami of cases we are having for this scam site, over the weekend I had a look at MET cases we have here stretching back to June 2014.  Yes, ten years.

MET have not once had the guts to put a case in front of a judge.

In about 5% of cases they have issued court papers in the hope that the motorist will be terrified of going to court and will give in.  However, when the motorist defended, it was MET who bottled it.  Every time.

  • 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

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...