MET services PCN help

Coupon-mad

I've never seen them not reply.

dcdubber87

I have just double checked to make sure it was sent and to the correct email address. And it's all good so not quite sure. I've resent it so hoping for more luck this time.

dcdubber87

Well, just had a response from the BPA, and to be honest i was kind of hoping for a bit more. here is the reply i have just recieved

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We are currently working with Government to provide much needed clarity on the management of railway land. We believe that by using the Byelaws of the land, they have appropriate authority and we do not consider this to be misrepresentation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The latest advice we have received from Government is that railway land should be managed using the relevant Byelaws.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please provide copies of the notices you have received to enable us to contact the operator and ask they review the possible inconsistency between the documents they have issued. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We will investigate any complaints about alleged non-compliance with the Code. However, we are not set up to deal with disputes from the general public about parking or control. Nor are we a regulatory body. Therefore, the Code does not provide a way for a driver to challenge how a landowner or operator has applied parking control and enforcement on private land. As a membership association we do not have the authority to cancel parking charges or recall charges from debt collection. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours Sincerely,
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Esme Berry[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]AOS Investigations Team

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Copies of the letters were included in the email, but i have just resent them to ensire they do and have got them.
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I know you have replied, but this would be fun:

We are currently working with Government

Dear Esme,

You protest too much on behalf of your employer Trade Body, with your spin: ''We are currently working with Government''.

That's a strange choice of wording - is the BPA skirting the issue, again?

You mean the BPA is LOBBYING Government, not working WITH them. You are muddying the waters to create a veil of legitimacy to cover your members' notoriously unfair business practices. The BPA are not a regulator nor any relevant authority. As you well know, the BPA is merely a one-sided Trade Body with consumer interests far too low in your thinking. Your hands are tied because your members dictate your actions; thus, the BPA appears incapable of independent and fair action.

All too often, the BPA allows your status to be confused to appear to be 'effectively regulation' when it suits the parking operators, just as the BPA did in order to extract the POFA Schedule 4 as 'quid pro quo' for the 2012 clamping ban, as if regulation in favour of rogue operators was needed. This then enabled clampers and the other motley crew members of the BPA to carry on with their aggressive conduct, replacing car clamping with credit clamping.

No doubt the BPA is proud of the way the UK public is currently being beleaguered by your members: fined for parking in their own home car parks, or at Hospitals when at our most vulnerable, stressed or ill, dragged to court to defend spurious four figure sums or hit with secret CCJs to old addresses, as well as fake 'byelaws fines' like this one. All for the profit of private firms and nothing whatsoever to do with 'parking management'. No, really, please. There has been no credible indication whatsoever, of any aim for fair parking management.

The BPA's interaction with Government is nothing to be proud of, so please don't insult me with a glib template reply, painting the position as if the BPA is some sort of authority with a say on Parliamentary matters. The BPA are in fact infamous for significantly misleading Government about the number of court claims, pre-POFA, as well as more recent moves, such as appointing a parking firms' debt collector, Wright Hassall, to imitate POPLA and then when ISPA protested, suddenly ISPA had no say over those cases and now ISPA has disappeared. You certainly get things done but not to the BPA's credit, in the eyes of the public.

So, here (below) it seems to me that you are admitting that private 'parking charge notices' have no place on railway land:

''The latest advice we have received from Government is that railway land should be managed using the relevant Byelaws.''

Kindly confirm your member will be cancelling the private invoice, since there is no lawful route to sidestep a byelaws penalty by paying a bribe to an unrelated, non-landowner/non-TOC third party. Act on advice from Government, stop putting out soundbites that you are 'working with' them, get the BPA's own house in order and you might finally earn an iota of respect from motorists, who have certainly not been seen to be at the heart of your thinking in recent years.

yours sincerely,

dcdubber87

Thanks for the brilliant repsonse to the reply i recieved, i didnt get round to sending that reply until i got back from working away with work. a few days later after the intial response from them she said they would look into it and low and behold i got a typical response back from them.

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your patience whilst we looked into this matter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We are still waiting for Government to provide the much needed clarification on what sort of notice (parking or penalty) can be issued to motorists who breach the Terms & Conditions at railway station car parks. Until this clarification is provided, we do not plan to insist that operators make changes to their notices. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We have been assured by Government officials that it is being worked on and they will be able to provide clarity to this matter soon. Once clarification is provided we can ensure all notices utilising byelaws and issued by our members are consistent. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Our apologies we cannot address this matter straightaway. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The BPA has worked hard to improve standards in the private parking sector in the knowledge there is no regulation of it. The AOS Code of Practice since its inception in 2007 has delivered significant improvements to the way operators manage their and their clients’ land and how they provide their services to motorists.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I got back from working away and sent the repsonse that was posted before and have yet to have a reply. suprise suprise. I have emailed all replies and emails over to David at the DVLA and am again waiting on a reply. In the meantime from the debt recovery side after sending them an email and letter requesting photographic evidence ive so far had these replies.

[FONT=&quot]This one states th[FONT=&quot]at they dont have t[FONT=&quot]o [FONT=&quot]supply photo evidence, its entirely their choice. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

h[FONT=&quot]xx[/FONT]p://tinypic.com/m/jkby20/3

[FONT=&quot]Its funny now they [FONT=&quot]addressing [FONT=&quot]it as P[FONT=&quot]arking Charge[FONT=&quot] Notice now when [FONT=&quot]the first couple of letters they wer[FONT=&quot]e calling it a Penalty Notice, where do i stand on them cha[FONT=&quot]nging their minds what they are ca[FONT=&quot]lling it.

[FONT=&quot]They then sen[FONT=&quot]d a letter with several [FONT=&quot]images of the car but doesnt include a picture of [FONT=&quot]parking ticket ended up which was on the [FONT=&quot]drivers seat.[FONT=&quot] They have only got pictures of the windscreen and side windows[FONT=&quot]. not sure that it m[FONT=&quot]atters but the time stam[FONT=&quot]ps on the images 2 of them were at 11.22am and the next 2 were 16 minutes later at 11.38. how long does it take to [FONT=&quot]process a ticket and why so far a[FONT=&quot]part.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The next day this letter w[FONT=&quot]as recieved but isnt much he[FONT=&quot]lp really either.

h[FONT=&quot]xx[/FONT]p://tinypic.com/m/jkby3n/3

[FONT=&quot]So as it stands the[FONT=&quot]y are still trying to retrieve £150 but have used 2 different [FONT=&quot]descriptions o[FONT=&quot]f wha[FONT=&quot]t they are [FONT=&quot]calling this charge[FONT=&quot], MET parking called it[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]a [FONT=&quot]P[/FONT]arking [FONT=&quot]C[/FONT]harge[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]N[/FONT]otice, D[FONT=&quot]ebt Recovery called it a Penatly Notice but several letters later they are now calling it a Parking Charge[FONT=&quot] No[FONT=&quot]tice as well. The BPA [FONT=&quot]dont seem to want to know or help and i dont think David at the DLVA can do mu[FONT=&quot]c[FONT=&quot]h from what his response was [FONT=&quot]from my in[FONT=&quot]itial contatc with him. C[FONT=&quot]an you see them taking this to court? and where do we stand at this point?

[FONT=&quot]On a side note we should be moving homes in the next month or 2[FONT=&quot]. do we need to inform both MET parking and Debt recovery on the change of address[FONT=&quot]?

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Th[FONT=&quot]anks for readin[FONT=&quot]g again

[FONT=&quot]Rob[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]





[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Umkomaas

where do i stand on them changing their minds what they are calling it.

Debt collectors can call it whatever they want, because you are ignoring them ......... aren't you?

Can you see them taking this to court?

Well here's MET's record over the past couple of years - and they've issued ~150,000 tickets in that time!

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_Parking_Services.html

do we need to inform both MET parking and Debt recovery on the change of address?

Inform both. If posting get a free certificate of posting from your Post Office counter. I'd also email, giving details of the PCN reference number, VRM etc, cc it to yourself at a different email address, as you will then have complete proof that the notice has been served.

dcdubber87

Thanks for providing the link. Thats some statistic there. Is this because they know that they are in the wrong with every single parking site they manage on a legal basis?

Certainly cant imagine the 70 plus thousand tickets served each year have all been paid without fighting it.

I am not ignoring the letters completely, as requested photo evidence and have said that a valid ticket is in posession and was purchased on the day of the charge.

Umkomaas

Is this because they know that they are in the wrong with every single parking site they manage on a legal basis?

Possibly, or they don't fancy a judge telling them so, or they make enough money thank you from those scared witless by their demands so leave the rest to debt collectors, or they don't have the grey matter to be able to string a sentence together to formulate a claim, or ....., or ....., or ....... Who knows what goes on in the mind of a parasite.

dcdubber87

just looking into that link you posted with the court facts, thats a really handy site which ive not yet come across. having a good old read on the MET parking and Debt recovery its certainly highlights a few dirty tactics they play, so i shall keep my eye out for more letters. Ive not done so yet but is it worth contacting the railway company about the issue, in this case Chiltern Railways?

Umkomaas

is it worth contacting the railway company about the issue, in this case Chiltern Railways?

Personally, I wouldn't bother. I don't think this is going anywhere beyond the irritant of debt collector letters.

As your original 'contravention' took place on 8 September 2016 you are now beyond the 6 months limitation for Chiltern (not MET) to bring a byelaws criminal prosecution.

The position of private parking operators and their conflation between byelaw and contractual law in 'managing' statutory controlled land is far too complicated and heavily laden against them for a lightweight outfit like MET to be contemplating being the first PPC in the land to take such a case before a judge.

Your next milestone date is 8 September 2022, when the Statute of Limitations kicks in, and MET are legally timed-out from starting any legal proceedings (they currently have 6 years to bring a civil case).