Chiltern / Met / Roxburghe

Coupon-mad

So, am I right in assuming that we can no longer appeal to POPLA full stop?

Nope unless you never got a POPLA code - but listen, I think you possibly DID NOT GET A CODE. Did you read the Parking Prankster link?! MET weren't offering POPLA to people and they were slapped on the wrist about it and are in trouble about these tickets already!

All you need to do is email the BPA to complain, come on, don't PAY! You would be a mug if you did.

Querym

Thank you UMK...the debt collector is DRP (debt recovery plus). I know that they have no authority to place a 'trump up' order upon us, but if we have no recourse via POPLA, then is the passing of this to the small claims court not likely? And then we are at the mercy of the contract term, imposing penalties for incorrect display, being upheld.
I always believed this to be a term aimed at ensuring customers actually did buy a ticket, as otherwise there is little proof of purchase. It seems grossly unfair when used against an annual ticket holder, Afterall, if you forget your annual ticket on the train, they simply check with the station you purchased the ticket from, or ask you to produce at a later time, which has happened to me before. And also, the term was certainly not highlighted or mentioned at the point of purchasing the annual ticket via Chiltern Railways, that such a steep penalty would or could be imposed.
Has anyone had similar experience in relation to an annual ticket as opposed to a daily pay & display?

Coupon-mad

Don't assume you can't have POPLA until you have complained to the BPA - it's one email needed with copies of the letters you have kept, and the address is in post #6 of the Newbies sticky thread.

if we have no recourse via POPLA, then is the passing of this to the small claims court not likely?

Not at all. What do you think we all did just 2 years ago before POPLA existed as an option? This will NOT go to court and if it did, the registered keeper cannot be held liable anyway as it's byelaws land (not covered by 'keeper liability'). They are stuffed. You are not.

Querym

Thanks Couponmad, that's interesting, I do recall reading about that back in March, but recollection was that hubby had been offered a code, but I'm not 100% on that. Will have to look it up!


The keeper liability caveat in relation to byelaws land, I gather requires that he was not the driver, nor declared himself the driver... if that has not happened, wouldn't the MET legal beavers appreciate that too? Just wondering what the process might be in deciding who they take on, and who they write off?! Presumably they would be looking at some probability of success rationale before taking to court??

Coupon-mad

MET don't generally 'do' court. And after what's been exposed about the Chiltern parking scam, they would have two hopes...and Bob has left the building.

Umkomaas

MET Parking have 'done court' just twice in the past 18 months - and that's not necessarily related to pursuing PCN, it's any appearance.

How do we know? Look at these links (most recently available information).

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/179544/response/444525/attach/3/A%20FINAL%20REPLY%20TO%20LEWIS%2085865.doc

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/205660/response/510306/attach/3/AA%20REPLY%20TO%20Craig%20Lewis%2090006%203.doc

HTH to ease those worries.

HO87

Only the train operating company (Chiltern) could initiate action in respect of an alleged offence contrary to the railway byelaws - not Met. A byelaws offence is a summary only matter (can only be dealt with at the magistrates court) and as a consequence Chiltern will have had to start that process (by applying for a summons at the court, what is known as "laying an information") within 6 calendar months of the offence. Its reasonably clear that we are now well beyond that (given that you were responding to letters from Gladstones solicitors in March of this year). As a result the only route open to Met - as if they really had any other option - is to pursue things the way they are. Any further threat to that effect is of no value and, were it to come, let's say, from Gladstones (who should know different - they are legally trained) is worthy of complaint as being deliberately (or recklessly) misleading.

I urge you to check their previous letters as Met have "form" for failing to provide/refuse POPLA codes. The BPA are likely to direct them to issue one and a win there for a forum guided appeal is, frankly, a slam dunk.

Final comment: I do appreciate that you are a private parking novice but you are over-thinking this.

I first encountered just such a situation in 2005 fought it, ended up in court and won in the days before this forum existed. The advice you will get here is as a good as it gets. PePiPoo is for the slightly more complicated case but Met cases are just straightforward.

Querym

Thank you all for these hugely informative posts, and you are right HO87, the advice on this forum, from yourself included, is fantastic.