DCBLegal (Claim Form) - Met Parking Services Ltd (Stansted) - HELP Please, transferred so far away

raislander

Hi all 

I've been following the forum for quite some time, following the advise from the NEWBIES to disregard previous letters from DRP etc. 

I got "caught" in the infamous Stansted car park without even realizing the whole scam related to this place. I was waiting for someone to be picked up from the airport, as I had the family with me decided to go to McDonnals, the parking there was full and I moved to park at the one in Starbucks. 

Took me 15 mins to buy food from McDonnals and left the premises. A month later or so I got a PCN from MET Parking. 

I lost my "window" to appeal in POPLA I believe as I received the notification being on holidays, so I've been disregarding the notifications as suggested here. 

I also have to highlight that as many here, the initial charge of 100£ is now "magically" 170£.

I attach a copy of the letter received today below, it comes with the fiorms etc and a financial statement I'm not going to reply of couse. 

I would appreciate some advise on how to reply this as I'm a bit confused, and have a few questions:

1) Do I have to send a SAR? What is a SAR by the way?
2) Do I just disregard this ones as well?
3) Do I provide them with any reply/details at this stage?
4) I don't see an email, in their letter so how should I reply?

Also I've read that something is changing in 2024, but I'm not to sure to understand.

Many thanks for your advise. 

Cheers.

Coupon-mad

No SAR. 

Just do what it says in the CST Law group thread and in the NEWBIES thread LBC stage.

raislander

Thank you for the quick reply. 

If I understood correctly I need to send an email to them with:  

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

(b) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

(c) robustly reiterate your reasons for disputing the claim and/or state (if true) it was so long ago you have no idea what all this is about and expected to see evidence and/or (if true) that you were not the driver and do not believe their client can hold the keeper liable.

My issue being that I don't see any emails from them to reply to, just to go to their website and it requires my details. 

I could always argue that I was not the driver although been the keeper, but in relation to the Stansted Car Park which is clearly a trap is there any other argument to be made? Signs are difficult and confusing and I had to come back there to understand really what was going on, because there is no real separation between the two car parks and it's really easy to go from one to the other without noticing. 

Thanks for youra advise.

KeithP

raislander said:

If I understood correctly I need to send an email to them with:  

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

If that's really what you want. 
Think carefully.
Do you want a County Court Claim Form dropping through your letter-box a week before Christmas?

Perhaps you should delay sending that reply so that the '30 day hold' coincides with the Christmas/New Year break, but it's up to you.

UncleThomasCobley

You only need to request a 30 day hold if you absolutely require more time. It does not give you any advantage by delaying these spurious claims though.

So, (a)... only if absolutely really necessary. No real advantage for anything.
(b)... only if applicable.
©... You do not need to mention anything about being the driver, whether true or not. You only need to make sure that you are corresponding as the Registered Keeper (RK) and as such, you cannot be held liable for the PCN as this occurred on non-relevant land covered by airport bylaws.

Only the driver can be held liable and there is no legal obligation for you, as the RK, to identify the driver and no assumptions can be made. Therefore, MET parking should cancel the PCN.

raislander

KeithP said:

raislander said:

If I understood correctly I need to send an email to them with:  

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

If that's really what you want. 
Think carefully.
Do you want a County Court Claim Form dropping through your letter-box a week before Christmas?

Perhaps you should delay sending that reply so that the '30 day hold' coincides with the Christmas/New Year break, but it's up to you.

I've got until the 8th of December, so I plan to send the reply close to the end of the 30 day period, which should move this to 8th of Jan 2024, at least right?

Coupon-mad

Yes if you prefer to handle the claim in the New Year.

KeithP

raislander said:

KeithP said:

raislander said:

If I understood correctly I need to send an email to them with:  

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

If that's really what you want. 
Think carefully.
Do you want a County Court Claim Form dropping through your letter-box a week before Christmas?

Perhaps you should delay sending that reply so that the '30 day hold' coincides with the Christmas/New Year break, but it's up to you.

I've got until the 8th of December, so I plan to send the reply close to the end of the 30 day period, which should move this to 8th of Jan 2024, at least right?

That's right.

raislander

UncleThomasCobley said:

You only need to request a 30 day hold if you absolutely require more time. It does not give you any advantage by delaying these spurious claims though.

So, (a)... only if absolutely really necessary. No real advantage for anything.
(b)... only if applicable.
©... You do not need to mention anything about being the driver, whether true or not. You only need to make sure that you are corresponding as the Registered Keeper (RK) and as such, you cannot be held liable for the PCN as this occurred on non-relevant land covered by airport bylaws.

Only the driver can be held liable and there is no legal obligation for you, as the RK, to identify the driver and no assumptions can be made. Therefore, MET parking should cancel the PCN.

To be honest my intention is where possible to put this to an end they've been sending letters for months now. 

I plan to send them the email/letter by the end of the 30-day period. 

Should a letter like this work as a proper reply?

Dear Sir or Madam

 I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 8th of November 2023, but not received until the 17th of November 2023, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggest that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, however I am currently seeking debt advice and demand that the case must be put on hold for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(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.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“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.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the xxxxx. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the xxxx and “Contravention Date” as the xxxxxx.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 18th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 24th day from the date of the contravention.

The letter is believed to have been posted 2nd Class to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14 day cut-off.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and consequently Met Parking Services Ltd has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited, a sister company to Excel, LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.  The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA.

I require you to cancel the PCN and erase my data.

If you persist in processing and/or sharing my data and in the event of MET Parking Services Limited filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Yay, go for it! That's what I'd do, because that can stop the claim if they see there's no hope.

raislander

Just to clarify that althought exact days are not stated yet in the letter it's true and I will add to my reply the NTK which was issued 18 days after the day of contravention and I only recevied the letter in fact 24 days after the contravention happened, breaking terms of POFA Schedule 4 correct?