MET PCN at BP Stanstead SF CM24 1PY

Horseleas

Thank you I am going to have a look at that. So why are they giving you 10 000 letter? 

Le_Kirk

Isn't it 10,000 characters?

Horseleas

No it's letters I tried to put spaces and it wasn't counting. The system is counting just letters. 

pensioner265

The postcode CM24 1PY is the correct one for the BP Garage.
The postcode CM24 1AA is for the stanstead airport area, but the other side of the whole airport complex……..but was only in use from December 1994 to January 2010, then discontinued. Met parking say their contract was drawn up in 2016, so well after the postcode was discontinued!

Horseleas

Thank you for this info pensioner265. Can I use it in my comments the way you wrote it? 

Fruitcake

I would reword it, but it is extremely useful information.

You need to highlight the fact that the claimant has provided a contract for the airport complex at postcode CM24 1AA. State that this postcode was discontinued before the alleged contract was made (give the dates) and that the postcode no longer exists, nor did it when the contract was formed, nor did it exist at the material time.
State that the vehicle was not at the location declared on the contract.

Then highlight the fact that the NTK and the claim form both state a completely different location at postcode CM24 1PY which is on the other side of the airport.

Then state that the claimant has not provided a contract with or flowing from the landowner for the location of the alleged event, and therefore have shown that they have no standing to issue charges in their own name. They have no right to operate nor issue charges to motorists at the garage, therefore their claim is vexatious, and they have breached data protection legislation by obtaining and processing your personal data without cause.

Horseleas

Is this any better. I was reading a lot of newbies after i finished work. This doesn't even reach 5000 letters with spaces. Please can you have a look? I should be submitting today or tomorrow the latest. 



Insufficient signs

MET State,
„In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. Please note this site is a 24-hour petrol station therefore it is illuminated during the hours of darkness...“

I point out that:

·        absence of a date on the site plan - Without a date on the site plan, it becomes challenging to determine when the plan was created or last updated and it becomes difficult to know if the site plan is still accurate.

·        images of the signs are outdated - Looking at the date on the images of the signs, it's clear that they were taken 2 years ago. In this case, relying on outdated images could lead to misinformation and confusion. Some of the signs on the plan are no longer in use as numbers 22 & 23 are not displayed on the M&S food store window anymore.

·        no photo of illumination of the petrol station -  No evidence has been provided of the petrol station itself during darkness.

MET State,

„We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions.“

I point out that:

·        images in different lighting conditions – no photo evidence of signs taken during the hours of darkness , nor evidence which would demonstrate whether the signs can be read when a light source is shone upon them for instance from a car,

·        small text fond – No complies with Code of Practice 2020, the text is illegible and sign no readable even when in A4 format and the Terms and Conditions  buried in the small print

Met State,

„The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance...“

I point out that:

·        images in different angle -  no photos provided from the same angle of the driver

Driver entered the car park at 11pm at darkness and was not able to spot the sign high on the post at the entrance from a moving car with no sufficient post lighting. There was no other sign when driving across the petrol station straight to the front of the M&S food store nor in front of the door entrance to the food store. 

 

 No Landowner Authority

Met State;

„We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack..... the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices ...“

I point out:

·        No legitiment Contract – MET provided a contract for the aiport complex at postcode CM24 1AA. This postcode was discontinued before the alleged contract was made on 13/06/2016 and that the postcode no longer exists, nor did it when the contract was formed, nor did it exist at the material time.

·        Different Postcode - the vehicle was not at the location declared on the contract. The NTK and the claim form both state a completely different location at postcode CM24 1PY which is on the other side of the airport.

·        No Standing to issue charges – MET has not provided a contract with or flowing from the landowner for the location of the alleged event, and therefore have shown that they have no standing to issue charges in their own name. They have no right to operate nor issue charges to motorists at the garage, therefore their claim is vexatious, and they have breached data protection legislation by obtaining and processing your personal data without cause.

·        Missing information on the contract – no charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace period and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary. No information about, who the signatories are: job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

In conclusion, it is evident that the claimant's evidence and actions raise serious doubts about the validity of their claim. The discrepancies in the provided contract and the lack of a valid contract with the landowner bring into question the claimant's standing and their right to issue charges. It is imperative that these facts are highlighted and brought to the attention to ensure a fair and just resolution to this matter.

Based on the above comments, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

Le_Kirk

·        small text fond font – No complies compliance with Code of Practice 2020, the text is illegible and sign no readable even when in A4 format and the Terms and Conditions  buried in the small print

Couple of small corrections for you.

Horseleas

Thank you Le_Kirk. Is there anything else I could do better or add something.  I still have a lot of letters to use is needed. 

Le_Kirk

Provided you have countered everyone of MET's points you should be good to go and you've told them you expect it to be upheld.