DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101591--------------------------------------------------
MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: CD
Date: December 8, 2025, 3:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there,
I would appreciate some advice on this case. I've had a look
through the internet and on this forum and appreciate this
appears to be a particularly prominent car park where MET
Parking Services are issuing people with tickets for basically
nothing and then attempting to intimidate them into paying
through veiled threats of legal action and debt recovery via
different letterhead letters. I note that numerous of these
incidents have been highlighted in the mainstream media
including newspaper and online articles as well as TV shows, (Jo
Lucett), unfortunately discovered all these post PCN.
From what I read in the online content there seemed little point
in the appeal process so have taken the stance of completely
ignoring all correspondence so far up to now without replying,
(PCN + 9 letters). However, have just received a "Letter of
Claim", which I believe requires a response?
PCN was apparently issued on 30/12/24 for parking incident on
22/12/24. Didn't receive PCN until 08/01/25 (after the 14 days),
but not sure that can be proved. On 22/12/24 the driver entered
the car park at 23:53:10 and parked outside Starbucks, Southgate
Park with the intention of using the store to make a purchase
for food and drink and use the facilities. However, once parked
it was found that Starbucks was actually closed, which was not
initially clear due to driving and time of night /weather. On
checking the signage it indicated that there was free 1 hour
parking for customers.
As Starbucks was closed and the McDonalds immediately next to it
in the same site was open the driver walked the very short
distance to McDonalds where a purchase was made as a customer
and the facilities were used. At 00:49:01, 55 minutes later the
driver drove out of the car park within the 1 hour limit. A PCN
was later received addressed to the registered keeper which
indicated the vehicle had remained on the site on the date for
"55 minutes, being longer than the period of parking that had
been paid for or without authorisation" and apparently "in
breach of the t&c's displayed on signs in prominent places".
I have since read articles online where it appears people have
had the exact same situation and where MET Parking Services
claim the car parks for Starbucks and McDonalds are separate
businesses / car parks and marked as such, (which clearly is not
true). It was cold, wet and dark at the time of the visit and
the signage was vague and poorly lit but indicated in large
writing there was free parking for 1 hour for customers. There
was no indication that Starbucks and McDonalds would be treated
separately as they were in the same car / retail park and there
was no clear indication in the car park of any meaningful
separation between either establishment
I have also seen other articles suggesting when the store is
open there is a screen inside Starbucks to enter vehicle
registration details when using the store, but even this isn't
clear as a requirement and people have received tickets when
parking in the car parkand using Starbucks. Obviously as it was
closed there was no option to enter vehicle details or ask
anyone permission to park there nor was there a facility to
enter vehicle details in Mcdonalds. It certainly was not clear
that in making a purchase in McDonalds you would not be classed
as customer and the suggestion would be you were in a separate
car park, (especially when there is one shared entrance / exit).
I enclose a copy of the PCN and latest letter of claim as well
as some pictures and would appreciate advice how best to
proceed.
Thanks
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/6ppWX49r/MET_PCN_(edit).png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/9FnmcFrG/PCN_Letter_of_Claim_(edit).png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/26jZWSmQ/Venue.jpg
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/RhkhgSrn/Signage.jpg
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/nrDcjysK/Signage-2.jpg
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/KY07cH3V/Map.jpg
#Post#: 101593--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 8, 2025, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The real issue is that this is not “relevant land” for the
purposes of the legislation (PoFA 2012,
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
which
can otherwise be used to transfer liability from the unknown
driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle. As long as the
driver is not identified, the registered keeper can not be
liable although the process will take several months with MET
claiming otherwise and threatening court, as can be seen in
other cases here.
#Post#: 101595--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: CD
Date: December 8, 2025, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - I did read something in another thread about that (and
METPS contesting it). Do you think just send a reply on that
point? Has there been cases that have found on this basis (or
have they not gone to court?). The Driver has not been declared
/ identified.
#Post#: 101597--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 8, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just search the forum for
Stansted
and there are lots of cases and responses, for example
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper. MET cannot hold a registered
keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is
under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will
be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because
Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land'.
>
> If Stansted Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable
under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift
and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not
pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the
Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never
attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET's own profit (as
opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and
MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the
driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
But you’re past this now, so need to reply to the Letter of
Claim for now.
For example, as in
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/met-victim-dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-stansted-southgate/msg94737/#msg94737<br
/>but I haven’t checked this in detail.
#Post#: 101600--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: CD
Date: December 8, 2025, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for info - I'll give it a try.
#Post#: 101601--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: CD
Date: December 8, 2025, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have requested response via www.dcblegal.co.uk/response and
to complete a financial statement. Should I be responding via
this method or letter via registered post or does it matter?
#Post#: 101623--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 9, 2025, 1:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They can request what they want but, no, you can reply in any
way that reaches them, and you can ignore the “financial
statement”, what right do you think they have to receive this
information? This is only slightly relevant if you’re intending
to pay them, but if you’re going to tell them you will defend
any claim then it’s completely irrelevant.
#Post#: 101723--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: b789
Date: December 9, 2025, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This could have been put to bed at POPLA. However, you are where
you are. At least the drivers identity has not been blabbed,
which is the strongest point.
I can tell you with greater than 99.9% certainty that as long as
you follow the advice you are receiving here, you will not be
paying a penny to MET. As long as they have, in desperation,
used DCB Legal to issue the claim, as long as it is defended
when it comes, irrespective of all the winning points you have
up your sleeve, it will either be struck out or discontinued
before it ever reaches a hearing.
FOr now, simply respond to DCB Legal with the following email to
info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference
number]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client
places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to
comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol,
and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These
provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and
proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves
with them.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient
information to understand each other’s position. Part 6
clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents
relevant to the issues in dispute.
>
> Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none.
That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your
client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in
meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish
the very document you purport to enforce.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please
provide:
>
> [indent]1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and
any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012
liability.

> 2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your
client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s)
in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with
a site plan showing the sign locations.

> 3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
> 
4. The written agreement between your client and the
landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to
litigate.

> 5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the
principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and
whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes
VAT.
[/indent]
>
> I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and
6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own
obligation under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as
non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will
raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I
reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court
and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where
appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
>
> Until your client complies and provides the requested
material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim
or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of
costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I
will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling
provision of the above.
>
> Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will
only respond by email or post.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
Do not use their portal. Do not use any forms that came with the
Letter of Claim (LoC). Everything is going to be by email.
Nothing is sent by snail mail post.
#Post#: 102062--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: CD
Date: December 11, 2025, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for the template and the advice.
I have copied and e-mailed them the response you set out, to dcb
legal today and will await their reply.
I'm sure they will carry on with the intimidating letters but
will pop back for more advice once I hear anything back.
Thanks again - you guys give me faith there are decent,
knowledgeable people out there willing to help those that need
it to stand up to these highway robbers.
CD
#Post#: 102132--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Alleged Overstay - Southgate Park,
Stansted
DIR By: b789
Date: December 12, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The debt recovery letters are only "intimidating" if you do not
understand that there is absolutely nothing these debt
collectors can do. They are powerless. They are not a party to
the contract allegedly breached by the driver.
As long as you are aware of that, then those letters should
never be "intimidating" ever again. Use the free paper as
kindling or shred it to make hamster bedding. Win win.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page