coming back to this post since there is a change in situation I now have sold the car to which this PCN is linked and just want to confirm that I do not need to inform about this to parking company. I have been ignoring their letters and nothing has happened.

@Dx yes I have read very bottom of the letter saying "this case is not subject to High court or bailiff action". However, I want to know just in case if legal action is taken will I need those Post Office tracking receipt of snotty letters? as I do not have those any more. I thought I will not receive any more communication on this so threw them away.

I now have received Notice of Debt Recovery letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd last Friday with regards to this PCN saying I have unpaid parking charge of £170.00 and that I have 14 days from the date of the letter (3rd Jan 2023) to pay the outstanding amount or call them to discuss repayment. If I don't pay they will recommend the commencement of legal action against me. My question is the last set of communications were almost 2 years ago and I no longer have Post Office receipts as evidence to show that I replied to their communication (snotty letters), will that affect? what does discussion of repayment mean will they reduce the amount? and if yes is it worth going down that route?

can you please review below and advise of any changes? Ref PCN: **** VRN: **** PCN Date: 05/12/2019 Issue Date (Posted): 06/01/2020 I write in response to your so-called “Letter Before Claim”, received in relation to PCN Number xxxx, issued by MET Parking Services for alleged parking breaches. I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying these ridiculous and made-up sums of money for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with your client. You also scored a big own goal when you tried to sneak in £70 Unicorn Food Tax. Remember DDJ Harvey's judgement at Lewes on 5 February 2020 (claim number F0HM9E9Z)? Not very happy with these made-up amounts, was he? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a good hiding in court. Up to you. I quite fancy a well overdue holiday once all this COVID stuff is over and you’re financing it after an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) would do nicely. Should your client wish to proceed with this farcical claim, I’ll be seeking recovery of costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour, as well as damages for breach of the DPA 2018.

the charge amount is £170.

Actually the CST has sent me the form to fill in, please see attached. Scan 01 Feb 2021.pdf

already posted in the description!

No it is linked to the thread about electric bay parking notice. I am receiving the letters for that one.

I had below post created almost a year ago and now I have received Letter Before Claim from CST Law Firm who has been instructed by MET Parking Services to commence legal action against me. For below post I can not reply as no help will be available hence creating this new one. The reason I didn't reply to below post for long time because last year I sopped receiving letters from CST and now since last one or two months I have started receiving letters again. Not sure if the gap between two letters is more than a month than case is still valid but looking forward to get some help. I suppose Letter Before Claim now officially requires me to respond or take some action?

@Will Goodfellow you didn't make any clarification on they not responding to my letter. I think if they respond means what I said can also be looked at as right argument. If they think person has lied then they also must respond to prove it. is that not the case?

@Will Goodfellow what do you define as a grace period? 10 minutes, 30 minutes or 1 hour? remember they haven't responded to my letter either. I don't think this is anything about lie. While they haven't followed POFA protocol does it matter if I mention about grace period?

same as posted on my another thread shall I go for the option of POPLA appeal in this case as I think there is still time to do it in this case.

I read the below post today where the issue was related to Disabled Bay Parking and person used POPLA to appeal and won successfully. I wonder if I would have gone on the same route there was a chance for me too to get out of this successfully. The basis on which person won the appeal was because Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, this also applies in my case. Although in my case I had to first appeal to MET and then POPLA not sure it was applicable in below case where parking company involved was Euro Car Parks.

@ericsbrother - I looked at some of the past threads but those are either incomplete or still on going but for the one you mentioned above is there any chance for you to provide me link please? Many Thanks.

I have got few letters begging for money now but I wonder shall I at least sent them letter acknowledging this and informing that I am not ready to pay or something? as sitting idle doesn't seem like a good idea.