MET parking charge/gladstone solicitors

mnkut

UPDATE:

Hi all,

After posting Daisy's fantastic letter, I've had a response from MET (none from Gladstones as of yet)

Referring me to Roxburghe

How can I politely tell them I will not be contacting Roxburghe?
Given that they have failed to renew their business license etc

All help is much appreciated




Hi all,

I have have been ignoring a MET windscreen parking notice from October 2013, having gone through the Roxburghe process...

I have now received my first Gladstone solicitors letter.

Quite honestly I am wishing I didn't ignore these as I normally appeal with success. I was thinking to reverse the clock by sending out a 'not the driver of vehicle' type letter with driver's details and restarting.

Any recommendations?

Much appreciated :j

4consumerrights

If there was a windscreen ticket - naming the driver will not work as the driver would have had an opportunity to challenge in the first instance. Re-setting the clock works when it is ANPR and the keeper was not the driver.

The letter from Gladstones - if this is a formal letter before action then this needs to be addressed as such using the guide which Daisy wrote (amended slightly - as it was written for Parking Eye primarily) -

It would be interesting to see this letter from Gladstones - if you could post up -MAKE SURE YOU REMOVE IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION FIRST.

If it is a LBCC (which it probably is if it is from Gladstones - even if non-compliant) then you need to acknowledge this and respond within 14 days or else court papers can be served with no further warning. Trust me if Gladstones are involved - you will get court papers.


You should be making a really concerted effort to get this charge cancelled by whoever engaged MET in the first instance - this is never too late - complain to retailer/landowner/ agent

mnkut

4consumerrights wrote: »

If there was a windscreen ticket - naming the driver will not work as the driver would have had an opportunity to challenge in the first instance. Re-setting the clock works when it is ANPR and the keeper was not the driver.

The letter from Gladstones - if this is a formal letter before action then this needs to be addressed as such using the guide which Daisy wrote (amended slightly - as it was written for Parking Eye primarily) -

It would be interesting to see this letter from Gladstones - if you could post up -MAKE SURE YOU REMOVE IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION FIRST.

If it is a LBCC (which it probably is if it is from Gladstones - even if non-compliant) then you need to acknowledge this and respond within 14 days or else court papers can be served with no further warning. Trust me if Gladstones are involved - you will get court papers.


You should be making a really concerted effort to get this charge cancelled by whoever engaged MET in the first instance - this is never too late - complain to retailer/landowner/ agent

Thank you for your response,

I am not sure how to find the landowner as my car was parked outside a block of flats in its car park

Parked in a V bay by a sign stating 'V bays are for visitor purposes' so I parked as I was visiting a friend

How can I send you a picture of the gladstones letter?

It does not appear to be a court notice yet, as it states
'our clients may now instruct to take legal action... please contact Roxburghe...'

What should be my next steps? I am new to MSE, I have read what Daisy wrote admittedly panicked however still unsure as its parking eye specific

Do I send a letter to MET or Gladstones or both?

4consumerrights

It does not appear to be a court notice yet, as it states
'our clients may now instruct to take legal action... please contact Roxburghe...'

Why are they asking you to contact Roxburghe - a toothless debt collector who incidently has just failed to renew its licence - after a long investigation. The parking company is MET.

Please do copy and upload photo - many people use Tinypic.com - simply create a broken link here - and we can view.

mnkut

4consumerrights wrote: »

Why are they asking you to contact Roxburghe - a toothless debt collector who incidently has just failed to renew its licence - after a long investigation. The parking company is MET.

Please do copy and upload photo - many people use Tinypic.com - simply create a broken link here - and we can view.

Exactly what led to my confusion...:o

Gladstone letter:
http://
i57.tinypic.
com/346me6r
.jpg

V bay sign: (ironically the sign has not been stamped by MET, looks like another company?)
http://
i59.tinypic.com/15cljye
.jpg

Left spaces as MSE won't let me post links since I'm a newbie:p

bazster

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=346me6r&s=8
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15cljye&s=8

That isn't a solicitors' letter, it's just Poxburghe using Gladstone's name as another link in the threatogram chain. Just forget it unless you get a real letter before claim (highly unlikely).

And even if you do (still highly unlikely!) your defence is so obvious and easy! That sign quite clearly gives you, a visitor, a licence to park where you did, unconditionally save for the 48-hour limit. Furthermore it creates no contract, it mentions no charges or damages, and it doesn't even mention MET.

Basically this is one of the most incompetent attempts at chiselling money out of someone that I've seen for a long time.

fisherjim

That Gladstones letter even looks just like a typical debt recovery template letter to me!:rotfl:

mnkut

Yes it does, its all very silly but I just don't want to keep ignoring anymore as its not something i've ever done... Major regret

I want to take a proactive approach as I have done previously
Before it leads to court, as quite frankly I just don't have the time to deal with it

So am I best to contact MET as just an appeal hope they wont notice its a few months too late :eek:

HO87

bazster wrote: »

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=346me6r&s=8
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15cljye&s=8

That isn't a solicitors' letter, it's just Poxburghe using Gladstone's name as another link in the threatogram chain. Just forget it unless you get a real letter before claim (highly unlikely).

And even if you do (still highly unlikely!) your defence is so obvious and easy! That sign quite clearly gives you, a visitor, a licence to park where you did, unconditionally save for the 48-hour limit. Furthermore it creates no contract, it mentions no charges or damages, and it doesn't even mention MET.

Basically this is one of the most incompetent attempts at chiselling money out of someone that I've seen for a long time.

I agree entirely. This so-called solicitors letter is identical in form and uses many of the same phrases that Poxburg Roxfug have been using for years. The positioning of reference numbers and barcodes is identical to those of Boxchug.

Coupon-mad

mnkut wrote: »

Yes it does, its all very silly but I just don't want to keep ignoring anymore as its not something i've ever done... Major regret

I want to take a proactive approach as I have done previously
Before it leads to court, as quite frankly I just don't have the time to deal with it

So am I best to contact MET as just an appeal hope they wont notice its a few months too late :eek:

Have you found the sticky thread summary at the top of this forum, by Crabman? You need to respond to this letter IMHO, treating this as a bad/non-compliant LBCCC and so you will find the template to do so, in Daisy's sticky 'LBCCC Fightback' (linked by Crabman).

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have you found the sticky thread summary at the top of this forum, by Crabman? You need to respond to this letter IMHO, treating this as a bad/non-compliant LBCCC and so you will find the template to do so, in Daisy's sticky 'LBCCC Fightback' (linked by Crabman).

Ok I will treat as LBCC

Should I state this is my first attempt at an appeal?
Pretend I've made one (unrecorded delivery) ?

Or..?