MET Parking Services in 2013

Peter4Jica

Please has anyone had to deal with MET Parking Services since the law changed in October 2012?

Is it now better to appeal against the parking charge on the grounds that it is a) unreasonable and b) it is doubtful that a driver actually enters into a contract at all on a 'free' (in this case McD) car park. Or is it still better to ignore them?

My step daughter was 'caught' and like most 19 year olds, has no money to give away.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Loads of threads about all private parking companies since October 1st, this is no big 'law change AT ALL.

MET are mentioned in a fair number, I found some from a quick search:

Here

and

here

and

here

for starters.

But you should be reading any threads here (not just MET cases) as all the scammers are the same. The usual advice except in Scotland is to appeal/challenge the fake PCN and then follow that when rejected, by a very strong appeal to POPLA which we can help with. You'd be looking for breaches of the BPA code of practice and demanding lots of evidence, if you want to start with a strong legal challenge to MET then adapt and use parts of this template from the Parking Cowboys' website which you will see has lots of points:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/appeal-letter/

...and check out their summary of what a PPC has to do in order to be enabled to pursue a registered keeper rather than a driver:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/59333153#Comment_59333153

If you (or another person with more life experience than an average 19 yr old) are the registered keeper, then I would suggest waiting for the Notice to Keeper to arrive in the post before doing anything - unless the PCN has arrived by post already. If she's only had a fake PCN on the windscreen then that means she should not respond but IMHO the registered keeper should decide to handle it all instead if they are stronger at rebutting such drivel than she is. That's what I would do for a more vulnerable family member; I even offered to say I was driving once to an elderly victim but she took on board what I said and off she went and complained at the shop she was caught at - and they cancelled it.

Your step-daughter would be well-advised to complain if she was 'caught' at a retail park or Supermarket or any outlet with a big store/complex who may cancel the thing if she stands firm, stays polite but assertive, doesn't accept any old rubbish about it not being their problem and sees the Manager at a busy time in front of customers! No reason why she couldn't take you as 'assertive back-up' as well because this sort of treatment of customers isn't on. But obviously this doesn't work everywhere, such as in station car parks or hospitals there's no customer service desk to complain at.

If she is the registered keeper then consider someone else sending the legal challenge now without delay. NOT lying that they were driving but using the sort of letter like the Parking Cowboys' example which doesn't say either way but hooks the PPC in the direction of the person challenging as long as there's a name and address on it. Then that person would be the one to take the matter to a POPLA appeal which would need careful wording and lots of challenge points about lack of compliance/signs, lack of fairness, no contract, no trespass, it's a penalty = unlawful, and other paragraphs demanding evidence of their status, right to pursue parking charges, and suggesting to POLA that the contract/site agreement is not compliant with the BPA code so requiring that it is produced (many PPCs so far don't produce it and then lose!).

The alternative is to simply ignore all the threatograms - which was the usual advice prior to October and is still the advice in Scotland. Just means ignoring lots of debt collector drivel in the post to the registered keeper which 99.9% of the time just fizzles out - trouble is that on very odd/rare occasions some PPCs try a small claim a few months down the line. Hence why the advice now is usually to appeal and then go all out to win at POPLA because that stamps on the piece of rubbish at the PPC's own expense, and sends out a message to the PPCs and to other interested parties/POPLA and the press/Govt about the state of this farce of an 'industry'. The % of POPLA cases won is already high but we are pushing it higher!

Finally don't get het up about the fairly soft October law change; fake PCNs are no more enforceable than they ever were in law, it's just that now we have POPLA and the PPCs have the potential to chase the registered keeper (but no more chance or right of making them pay than there ever was with drivers...):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4360185

My niece is 19 and she has ignored 7 or 8 fake PCNs when I explained the scam to her. She's the registered keeper and laughs at the letters, however I have told her that the usual advice is now to use POPLA, which she may do next time for a nice change and to cost the PPC money only to see their fake PCN cancelled!

HTH

Peter4Jica

Hi

Thank you for your long and detailed reply. I particularly like the suggestion that we try to confuse the cowboys as to who was actually driving the car.

Although we never had any inclination to pay the charge, I am still somewhat undecided as to whether to bother with all the paperwork to appeal firstly to MET and then (as I assume that they reject all appeals automatically) to POPLA. Seems a lot of effort if we can achieve the same result by doing nothing!

My step-daughter is the registered keeper of the car and received her 'PCN' through the post a couple of weeks ago. Being a somewhat shy, nervous type, she only told me at the weekend.

Thank you again, P4J

nigelbb

Peter4Jica wrote: »

Hi

Thank you for your long and detailed reply. I particularly like the suggestion that we try to confuse the cowboys as to who was actually driving the car.

Although we never had any inclination to pay the charge, I am still somewhat undecided as to whether to bother with all the paperwork to appeal firstly to MET and then (as I assume that they reject all appeals automatically) to POPLA. Seems a lot of effort if we can achieve the same result by doing nothing!

My step-daughter is the registered keeper of the car and received her 'PCN' through the post a couple of weeks ago. Being a somewhat shy, nervous type, she only told me at the weekend.

Thank you again, P4J

In that case I recommend appealing to MET & when that is inevitably refused a proper defence presented to POLA is all but guaranteed a win. The alternative is your shy, nervous step-daughter receiving regular letters from debt-collectors with an increasingly threatening tone & the knowledge that it could always end up as a court case in 12-18 months time. Far better to finish it off now without the risk that she will buckle & pay up just to get the whole protection racket off her back.

Please start a thread on PePiPoo where you will get the correct advice to mount a proper defence for POPLA. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

Coupon-mad

Peter4Jica wrote: »

Hi

Thank you for your long and detailed reply. I particularly like the suggestion that we try to confuse the cowboys as to who was actually driving the car.

Although we never had any inclination to pay the charge, I am still somewhat undecided as to whether to bother with all the paperwork to appeal firstly to MET and then (as I assume that they reject all appeals automatically) to POPLA. Seems a lot of effort if we can achieve the same result by doing nothing!

My step-daughter is the registered keeper of the car and received her 'PCN' through the post a couple of weeks ago. Being a somewhat shy, nervous type, she only told me at the weekend.

Thank you again, P4J

If it were me then, I would respond to it in my name and make the implication appear by implication that you were driving - you could start 'the registered keeper has passed this Parking Charge Notice to me and I would respond with a challenge as follows...'

Just because you've she's shy and nervous I don't think she'd be the best person to cope with the threatograms. Whereas you could decide whether to ignore it after hooking them in your direction or whether to take it to POPLA later on (which I would recommend) when you can still word that appeal 'the driver did not see the signs/the signs were unclear/ the parking company does not have the status or right to pursue parking charges here - the parking is already offered by the onsite occupier/retailer - so MET should produce the contract/site agreement to POPLA if they contend otherwise' all in the third person so still not actually giving any real details except for a strong POPLA appeal which we can help you word. The point being it costs the PPC money and usually gets the thing cancelled, when worded well.

But equally once hooked away from your nervous step-daughter you could ignore it and if they ever tried to then take you to Court (wghich MET have never done to my knowledge!) then you'd have no liability anyway as you could say you were neither driver nor registered keeper. I wouldn't even give that a second thought though as it won't happen, it's just the usual junk mail for you which is shown under 'PPC letter chains' a sticky thread near the top of the forum. Look at the OLD gallery of pics from pre-October because that's where all the pics are at the moment.

Speedbird009

I had a letter from MET Parking for staying in MacDonalds at Heathrow, just on A4. Just ignore all letters, or tell them you do not know who the driver was, if they ask you to identify the driver, ignore it, only the police have the authority to request that info. They sent me threatening letters which I just ignored, they gave up after three months. They cannot enforce the notices, they just hope you will be guillible and pay up.

Kiko4564

Well, it's illegal for parking companies to use that abbreviation under the Administration of Justice Act 1970 anyhow.

HO87

Kiko4564 wrote: »

Well, it's illegal for parking companies to use that abbreviation under the Administration of Justice Act 1970 anyhow.

Where? Trying to shoehorn this type of behaviour into an alleged offence under s.40 is doomed to failure and assumes that MET themselves used the acronym rather than (the admittedly coincidental) phrase Parking Charge Notice. In any event proving that it was their intention to induce the recipient to believe they have powers that they do not have is going to be nigh on impossible.

nigelbb

The whole PPC industry is based on the scam of misrepresenting an authority they do not have. That is why their fake PCNs are dressed up to look like real PCNs e.g. ludicrous warnings that it is a criminal offence for anyone other than the driver to remove the "ticket" from the windscreen.

trisontana

Plus all those PPC names which seem to imply that they are some sort of government agency or department. Here is just a selection:-

Civil Enforcement Limited
Central Ticketing
Car Parking Partnership
MET
UKCPS (Crown Prosecution Service?)
UK Parking Patrol Office
Parkforce
Legal Parking Enforcers
Valid Parking
National Parking Management
County Parking Enforcement Agency

Plus two debt collectors:-

Court Proceedings Ltd
Judges Demand.