MET parking ticket

DonkyDave

Hi Guys,

I am pretty sure I will be told to "ignore all correspondence" by you all - but I just wanted to check. I got a parking charge notice today at my train station car park, issued by MET, for failing to properly display my ticket. I actually have a valid annual season ticket for the car park (which cost me nearly £1000), but my wife was using my usual "commute" car this am and so I took hers - forgetting that my ticket was still in my normal car. Came back tonight to find a £100 fine, reduced to £50 if I pay up sharpish. Now, as it is a railway station car park I am slightly concerned it could be issued under byelaws - but there is no mention of that on the ticket. So I am inclined to tell them nothing and just ignore everything. And if I do get summoned to court (unlikely, I understand) point out that I had a valid ticket already, so they are not out of pocket, and that in any case £100 is a punitive charge. Basically my questions are: if the ticket is issued under a byelaw, do they need to state this on the ticket? Secondly, will some nasty bailiff turn up if I ignore them (wife is scared of this one as she is at home by herself most days and does not want to be bullied)? Any feedback on either of these points would be much appreciated.

Oh, and finally, do any of you think it is worth me getting in touch with Chiltern (who own the car park and issued my season ticket) asking them to ask MET to wind their bl**dy neck in as I do actually have a season ticket (can they even do that)?

Cheers

Dave

Coupon-mad

Ignore it, or appeal it with MET then with POPLA using a strong appeal such as those about the lack of possessory title or no lawful rights of occupation by MET in this car park which would allow them to offer parking, allege contracts or suffer losses. VCS-v- HMRC refers, as discussed in this thread about POPLA success:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4447137

You won't get 'summoned' to court. It's not a crime.

It is not issued under any byelaws. A private 'Parking Charge' isn't a real one, it's completely different than if you'd got an actual penalty notice from the Train Operator themselves. There's no need to frantically check the ticket or signs - the fact it's not a PENALTY Charge tells you it's a piece of rubbish impersonating a parking ticket.

No bailiff can just turn up, take a moment to think about it! Otherwise ANYONE could allege you owe them money and then send the boys round...I could! ...errrr...nope! Here's the legalities:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24362

Ignore it and play snap with the threatograms that match the 'PPC letter chains' thread, or appeal it with conviction that you will also appeal to POPLA at MET's expense (otherwise there's no point appealing). If you do appeal I would absolutely NOT say the permit wasn't in the car - and I am not suggesting you lie. Just saying don't give information that helps the other side! You'd show the permit in your evidence and then you'd turn the tables and hit home about the VCS -v- HMRC issues. Make it clear you'll go to POPLA at their expense and MET could well duck out of it. Even if they don't, a POPLA decision is not binding on you - but an Upper Chamber decision such as VCS -v- HMRC is binding in a County Court...then again MET don't do Court so you'll be waiting a long time!

DonkyDave

Thankyou Coupon-mad.

So basically you are saying that because it was issued by MET as opposed to Chiltern it is not issued under byelaws (I did note this morning that the car park claims that the ticket *may* be issued under any byelaws in effect). This is good news. I will now tell them to poke off. I think I will appeal, and as you suggest I shall also state quite bluntly that I have a valid permit to use the car park (should I send them a photocopy or not bother?) and leave it at that with no further detail. I will also point out that I will be appealing to POPLA at MET's expense on the HMRC -v- VCS issue.

To be honest, if the "fine" were not so extortionate (i.e. maybe the cost of a single day's parking - which is more expensive than the discounted rate I pay through my annual pass) I may well have considered paying it. But to be used as a cash cow like this simply makes me want to dig my heels in.

Thanks again.

Dave

BASFORDLAD

I think if the charges were always reasonable then we would proberly all pay and the would be no need for this forum!

DonkyDave

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

I think if the charges were always reasonable then we would proberly all pay and the would be no need for this forum!

So true, so true.

Coupon-mad

DonkyDave wrote: »

Thankyou Coupon-mad.

So basically you are saying that because it was issued by MET as opposed to Chiltern it is not issued under byelaws (I did note this morning that the car park claims that the ticket *may* be issued under any byelaws in effect). This is good news. I will now tell them to poke off. I think I will appeal, and as you suggest I shall also state quite bluntly that I have a valid permit to use the car park (should I send them a photocopy or not bother?) and leave it at that with no further detail. I will also point out that I will be appealing to POPLA at MET's expense on the HMRC -v- VCS issue.

To be honest, if the "fine" were not so extortionate (i.e. maybe the cost of a single day's parking - which is more expensive than the discounted rate I pay through my annual pass) I may well have considered paying it. But to be used as a cash cow like this simply makes me want to dig my heels in.

Thanks again.

Dave

Yep, and I would send a copy of the Permit because that, plus the threat of insisting they fund a POPLA appeal from someone like you who knows the score, may just get the scam cancelled - which makes it easier for you all round.

DonkyDave

Great, thanks again Coupon-mad.

I have written a draft letter to MET stating that I hold a valid annual parking permit, and have enclosed a copy of said permit.

I have also told them that if they refuse I will appeal to POPLA at their expense. I've used a slightly modified version of Mulronie's post #27 in the "Shona does it again" thread. (the modification being to state that the landowner has not incurred a loss as I already have a valid permit). I will probably send it on Friday when I have more time to devote to dealing with this. I will let you all know what they say.

Thanks again.

D