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

raislander

Apologies, had to be away from the house during the weekend and couldn't follow up on your latest post. 

Please see attached the pictures of the original NTK front and back. Hope this helps. 

Thank you!

mg218006

raislander said:

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

Good afternoon, 

Finding your thread incredibly helpful as I too am in the same position, can I ask who you are addressing this email too as I am struggling to identify a clear response contact address for CST LAW? 

raislander

Good afternoon, 

Finding your thread incredibly helpful as I too am in the same position, can I ask who you are addressing this email too as I am struggling to identify a clear response contact address for CST LAW? 

Hi, welcome to the "team". I haven't jumped that "hurdle" yet, I believe to have seen an email address in others LBC, they used to attached it, but not anymore....I suppose you can always send the reply to that email address. 

If I find it again I will copy it here. 

Coupon-mad

Non-POFA wording.  No keeper liability possible.  Ignore unless you get a LBC or claim.

Thanks for posting the NTK, just what I needed for the NTK pictures thread.  Have added it!

raislander

Coupon-mad said:

Non-POFA wording.  No keeper liability possible.  Ignore unless you get a LBC or claim.

Thanks for posting the NTK, just what I needed for the NTK pictures thread.  Have added it!

HI Coupon-mad thanks for confirming that this was then non-POFA. That said I have indeed received a LBC as posted initially, so is there anyway to include the non-POFA wording into the reply letter I'm planning to send? I posted it on Friday.

Thank you!!

Coupon-mad

No template, just write a LBC response.  You can search and crib from others.

This is for you to write.  I'm also not saying why that NTK is non-POFA, you can see it for yourself by comparing it with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 then you'll understand it.  You are the Defendant, your case to understand!

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on things that are relevant to people at pre-action stage like you:

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

About half a million parking claims are now made (2023 likely figure).

The MoJ must separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court. It should be a last resort but it's the first.  You feel trapped and are just waiting for a LBC because there is no independent ADR and have no choice but to fight this in court.  That cannot be right for a parking 'ticket' (private or Council) which should never potential to affect credit rating.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you are. 

Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating, waste Judges' time and frighten consumers, millions of times in recent years.  The ideal situation is to speak to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities who are grappling with regulating the parking industry right now.  The Government needs to remove parking claims from the court system.  They should be handled by an Alternative Dispute Resolution system and no parking charge should ever threaten people's credit ratings and livelihoods.

You want to change things?

This Committee is your voice.  But attach your letters too.  Show them the rubbish you've received so far.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

raislander

Ok I've modified the LBC reply, please confirm if this would be ok, as I'm planning to put an end to this and send this at once through their online reply system. Seems that CST LAW is no longer providing an email address and forces you to reply online. ????!!!! Can someone also share the email address so I reply to both just in case? Thanks!!

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 suggests 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, and as the registered keeper I deny any liability or entering into any contractual agreement, as stated by your customer MET Parking. I will be as well making a complaint to MET Parking client's landowner about their predatory conduct. 

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 related to the relevant period and it's vague in its wording - which also fails to comply with requirements of Schedule 4 Section 9 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

Nice example of a robust LBC response.

Just add a deadline:

I require you/your clients to cancel the PCN and erase my data within 14 days of this email.

raislander

Perfect!!!! Thanks for the help!!!! 

mg218006

raislander said:

Ok I've modified the LBC reply, please confirm if this would be ok, as I'm planning to put an end to this and send this at once through their online reply system. Seems that CST LAW is no longer providing an email address and forces you to reply online. ????!!!! Can someone also share the email address so I reply to both just in case? Thanks!!

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 suggests 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, and as the registered keeper I deny any liability or entering into any contractual agreement, as stated by your customer MET Parking. I will be as well making a complaint to MET Parking client's landowner about their predatory conduct. 

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 related to the relevant period and it's vague in its wording - which also fails to comply with requirements of Schedule 4 Section 9 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

I have just found the following email address for CST LAW on another site 

info@creditstyle.co.uk

the website for reference was www.thriftyfamily.co.uk, they also have a link to the Credit style complaints portal, search CST Law LBC