bloody met!!!!!!!

suga_x_suga

hi there,
i recently recieved a letter from met parking after allegedly parking in mcdonalds and overstaying. when recieving the fine i wrote back stating, a number of persons had access to my vehicle and although i am the r/o i was not the driver att.
i have since had numerous letters, including the scariest from debt agency. what should i do? i have read several threads whichg state i should not pay,but what should i do? will i go to court? can they demand who the driver was, as i dont wish to disclose this? will it affect my credit rating? will i have bailiffs turn up at the house?
very confused.

peter_the_piper

in answer to your questions
1)no
2)yes they can ask but you don't have to reply
3)no
4)no

beanys

Ask them for proof . they need to give you times ect you over stayed

RENEGADE_2

They can TRY to take it to court, but these days judges do not even arrange a hearing. It is enough for them to see that the amount sought goes beyond losses and that puts an end to it. In the unlikely event that it did go to court, "actual losses" is your clinching argument which you would win hands down.

Concerning the naming of the driver - naturally you would have to produce this detail if the court asked you, but given that this won't happen, yes you are well within your rights to withhold this information from your antagonist. They may tell you that sooner or later you'll have to divulge the name but you just tell them, "Until that day, I'll wait, but I ain't telling you scammers anything so you can jump up and down all you like - it's court or nothing".

As they continue to send you mail, send it back marked "refused". I'm sure you recognise the envelopes by their return addresses.

RENEGADE_2

On the same note, I got my first threatogram from Town & City yesterday. Would you believe it! I never had to open it, these muppets write their name on the FRONT of the envelope!!!! Stupid or what? At least Euro Car Parks just send unmarked white envelopes meaning you have to open the first if not those thereafter.

angel_islington

beanys wrote: »

Ask them for proof . they need to give you times ect you over stayed

What would that achieve? So they give you 'proof', does that mean that you now owe them money? Er, nope.

AlexisV

Carry on ignoring. Met have never ever done court anyway.

Debt collection aren't scary - they're just computer generated crap.

RENEGADE_2

If I can develop AlexisV's post - "debt collectors" are not scary for the simple reason that nothing they issue is legally binding. The only things to worry about are CCJs and when you ignore one of these, you deal with bailiffs not "civil debt enforcement agencies".