Another victim of MET Parking at Stansted

Gsmith45

Hello all
Seems like that along with many others, I’m a naive victim of MET Parking at Stansted. I’m the Keeper of the car in question, which was parked for 20 minutes in the Starbucks car park whilst the Driver went to McDonald’s.

In my innocence I appealed the initial MET parking notice thinking that reasonableness would naturally prevail, and it was only when I get their response that I discovered this forum and found the newbies thread. Their response was quite blunt: “Left premises”

I went to the site myself and in my opinion although there are big signs saying “You must not leave Southgate Park” the text that explains that McDonald’s (which is right next door) is not part of Southgate Park, is not legible unless one walks right up to a sign below with a lot of other text on. Rather than escalate to POPLA I appealed again to MET (in my innocence) that the signs weren’t readable using language from the Newbies page. I also informed them that the Driver was a student in full time education and would be unable to pay any fine handed down and made them an offer of £10 to close the case. May be unorthodox, but I was hoping they wouldn’t pursue a student with no form of income.

MET has come back and rejected both of these. I was assuming I would still have recourse to POPLA anyway, so thought the second appeal to MET was worth a shot. However it now appears that the 28 day window on the POPLA code starts on issue of the first rejection, and I’m now unable to appeal with them as the POPLA site rejects my code. I wrote again to MET but they simply confirmed that the 28 day window started with the first rejection. Although I note that they sat on their second reply for more than 2weeks, which is where most of the time disappeared.

So what to do now? MET have made me an offer that if I disclose the Driver then they will re-issue a POPLA verification code. But I’ve read on this forum never to divulge the driver.

One extra point of note. My NRK was issued on 7 Feb for a contravention on 18 Dec. I’ve read somewhere on here that these dates need to be within 14 days of each other. Are there any grounds here? And who would I appeal to if not POPLA?

Thoughts welcome about what I should do next to fight this.

Gra

Redx

there is nobody to appeal to apart from popla, once you have a valid working code

I would complain to the BPA about not getting the full 28 days to appeal to popla, as keeper, and see if they can get it reissued

a complaint to the landowner is a good idea too

in any case, as they failed POFA2012 there is no liability for a keeper, so stay as keeper and they cannot win

ampersand

It seems metparking.com are seeking to top up their ill-gotten scammed gains before the gravy train throws all such scumpanies onto the scrapheap [which is tonight's metaphor hodge-podge overload]

Check this new thread from a fellow victim:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74079189#Comment_74079189

Coupon-mad

MET have made me an offer that if I disclose the Driver then they will re-issue a POPLA verification code.

I would complain to the BPA about that ultimatum.

Gsmith45

Redx wrote: »

there is nobody to appeal to apart from popla, once you have a valid working code

I would complain to the BPA about not getting the full 28 days to appeal to popla, as keeper, and see if they can get it reissued

a complaint to the landowner is a good idea too

in any case, as they failed POFA2012 there is no liability for a keeper, so stay as keeper and they cannot win

Thanks Redx for comment about POFA2012. I tried to read up on this but it was a bit obtuse. Can you explain more, or point me in the right direction? I also read somewhere that at County Court they can still sue the Keeper not the Driver?

Or is this a “let off” for me?

The_Deep

I tried to read up on this but it was a bit obtuse.

It is difficult, but it is not quantum physics, it is how the laws are written. If you do not want to lose a court case you must make an effort.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Gsmith45

OK, thanks for the tips. For the benefit of others, here's specifically what i found in POFA2012 that's applicable to the length of time elapsing between the "offence" and the issue of the NTK and limiting it to 14 days:

Para 4
1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;
{plus some other stuff}

Para 6:
(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

Para 9
(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

{...some other stuff..}
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended

Does that seem reasonable folks? If I quote this, does it get me off the hook given that the offence was on 18 Dec and the NTK issued on 7 Feb?

Coupon-mad

No because that's the paragraph that deals with a case with no windscreen PCN. Not your case.

Why not simply read the other case exactly like this, already linked for you in post #3.

And read any other MET threads, and do the usual 'BMPA Insight' Google search (explained in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread) which tells you MET never do court. Relax, you missed POPLA.

Complain about the ultimatum or give the driver's details to get a POPLA code (might still lose but so what, no-one PAYS just because POPLA is lost).

Gsmith45

Thanks CouponMad
The other case is slightly different to mine. In fact MET provided about 8 very clear pictures showing the Driver getting our of the car and leaving what MET define as "the site", and then coming back 20 mins later.

In your text you say that the POFA sections I quote were for "a case with no windscreen PCN". So I think that's accurate for me - there was no PCN, just a NTK a few months after the event. Or am I misunderstanding?
Thx for the BMPA link - very interesting reading

Coupon-mad

freedomreigns case is the same, as is the one by mick miller.

In both cases they have come back recently and said MET did the same, photos of them too.

In both cases, IMHO there is a legal issue with these photos being take by whom and under whose authority, of people rather than of cars. Smacks of a DPA breach to me for a random person - not identifying themselves, not in uniform, nor visible, and who is probably not DBS cleared and might not even be a PPC employee, could be a local jobsworth or trolley collector with any nasty criminal background (*shudders at the thought of what some people might hide*) to follow families around a retail car park taking photos, when the only signs probably warn of ANPR and gathering only VRN data, not human photos.

In your text you say that the POFA sections I quote were for "a case with no windscreen PCN". So I think that's accurate for me - there was no PCN, just a NTK a few months after the event.

OK, is yours a lease car then? Or a new car where the keeper details recently changed? They took a very long time to send you a NTK!

You can tell from the NTK if they are saying that a PCN was applied to the vehicle and 'remains unpaid'. If it doesn't, then this NTK or NTH is too late to hold you liable as registered keeper or hirer/lessee (which are you?).

Gsmith45

Thanks Coupon-Mad
I replied yesterday, but don't see it in the thread, so will try again. Apologies if the original somehow pops up later. But I do agree with you on the CCTV and am extremely concerned. But that's for another day with the ICO.

To your question - we are the owners of the vehicle, it's not a lease car and we've had it for a few years. And to your other question, there was no PCN on the car, and no mention of a PCN on the NTK. The offence was 18 Dec and the NTK 7 dated 7 Feb.

Does this all meant that it's too late for MET to take action? Given that my POPLA code expired, what do I do now? Write to MET and explain that they should desist as they are not compliant with POFA2012? Wait for Court Proceedings?

G