Met parking services Starbucks/mcdonalds

Query01

Hello all
I received a PCN from met parking services issued on 14.10.23 contravention date 12.09.23. 

I’ve read so many of the threads and advice.
I wasn’t the driver and have never confirmed who the driver was. I appealed to met parking via email (first mistake) and also questioned the 14 days to registered keeper but all they sent back were photos from cctv. When I questioned again and also advised the occupants never left the car park, they never replied but continued to send letters from debt collectors.

My second mistake is I never appealed it to POPLA and they have now put a claim against me. 

I’ve submit my defence and DCBL have advised met parking intend to proceed so I understand it will then go to mediation. I’ve put together my defence (with help from these forums thank you all so much) 
please could you have a read below? I’ve already sent this via email to the small claims.
Also apologies for the long thread! 

Good morning

I submit my defence online however, I am unable to amend it so would be grateful if you could consider all below facts. 

I have also received an email from DCBL advising Met parking services are proceeding with the claim so I understand the next stage is to go to mediation.

I have sought legal advice and spoken with citizens advice on this matter.

Please see my full defence below. 

1.     MET Parking Services has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The PCN must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

 

The PCN was issued 28 days after specified period of parking ended and received 33 days after the specified period of parking ended.

Contravention: 14/09/2023

Issued: 12/10/2023

Received: 17/10/2023

As this operator has evidently failed to serve a PCN, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in POFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly, I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

2 - MET has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. Any person(s), with the consent of the registered keeper, may drive a vehicle as long as the driver is insured.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be and as the Registered Keeper), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid PCN.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if MET is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

3) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated as left the premises are still photos. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that individuals can see while on site in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.
Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site', this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park.
The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the current GDPR legislation.

4) The site boundary is not clear.
The notice to keeper states that the reason for issuing the charge notice is: “Vehicle left in Southgate Park car park without payment made for parking and occupants left the Southgate Park premises.” 

Nowhere on the signage does it state:

- What the site boundary is.
- Show any map of where site boundary begins and ends.
- That leaving the site fails to comply with terms and conditions and finally the occupants did not leave the car park.

I require evidence from MET Parking Services to show a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.
There are no legible markings distinguishing the boundary of Southgate Park. There is one entrance to the site by vehicle. How does one know that one has left the site? McDonald’s address (for the building in this area) is Southgate Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY and Starbuck’s address is London Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY, so any reasonable person would see that the parking area around McDonald’s building is Southgate Park.
In addition, McDonald’s offers a drive through service and the entry point into this would presumably (since there is not any boundary marking) be from Southgate Park.
There is only one entrance to the Southgate Park site. Leaving the site, to a reasonable person, would mean to leave the vehicle within this boundary and go to a place outside the boundary. A reasonable person would understand that this condition would be in place to stop people parking and possibly going to the airport. There is not any clearly defined boundary to show that one part of a car park is different to another part of the car park.

Please also see below the initial letter I received with dates. May I please also bring your attention to the photo, you can clearly see there is no clearly defined boundary.

LDast

As long as you've submitted a defence, this will be discontinued some time next year.

Query01

Thanks! So in your opinion will a judge dismiss this case? Obviously it’s hard to say but I’m confident in my defence

Le_Kirk

No, it might become a number on @Umkomaas's discontinuation thread where the claimant discontinues rather than a judge throwing it out.

patient_dream

This is the famous MET scam site

It is a money trap. DCBL adore this scam

In true fashion, DCBL will proceed in wasting your time and their own time trying to scare you

The bottom line will DCBL take a scam to court, judges already know about this rubbishand DCBL can expect a spanking.
You can claim your costs

This is why DCBL chicken out and discontinue. This is a fun game with DCBL so enjoy it

Why the BPA allow the scam beggars belief  but the BPA is not fit for purpose

Coupon-mad

Please show us the defence you put in.

Query01

In a panic I submit my defence super quick and only realised I couldn’t amend it after I submit it. 

Should I forward the email above to DCBL too? Or wait for the mediation? 

Query01

Update: I’ve received an email back from claim responses. I guess all I can do is wait for the mediation call! 

Coupon-mad

Yes just go back to the Template Defence thread and follow the 12 steps again from where you left off, even though you used a short (inadvisable) one point defence. Nothing you can do to put that right now.

The N180 form and first letter/email from DCB is covered there and also Mediation, which is covered with 2 links, to stop people having to ask us about it.

Query01

Hi all
I’ve now received the N180 form so will complete this. 

I’ve read this in another thread but not sure if it’s still applicable as can’t see anything in the defence template thread about it, does the fact that there is no mention of POFA on the original PCN go in my favour? Could I say I will sue them for dpa breach when they requested my details from the dvla knowing they had breached the 14 day timescale?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

No because they don't have to use the POFA.  This was not a data breach.