Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength.

In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver).

Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two.

Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so.

Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.

No!

What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN.

The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN.

Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).

I've done a new version including LFI's suggestions.  I've also change the order to put your strongest arguments first.  Where possible the changes are in red.  The numbering is obviously knackered.  See what you think.

Background 

1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019. 

Unfair PCN 

4.1  On XXXXX the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) the solicitors helpfully sent photos of 46 signs in their evidence all clearly showing a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will  be reduced if paid promptly).  There can be no room for doubt here - there are 46 signs produced in the Claimant's own evidence.

4.2  Yet the PCN affixed to the vehicle was for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced if paid promptly).  The reminder letters from the Claimant again all demanded £100.

4.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.  

4.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.

No Locus Standi

2.1  I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is- 

(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or 

(b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44 

For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. 

2.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The contract produced was largely illegible and heavily redacted, and the fact that it contained no witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “No Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.

Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed 

3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved. 

3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses this document. 

No Keeper Liability 

5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time. 

5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.   

5.3        The claimant did not mention the parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.  

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

The notice must - 

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.

5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.

Interest

6.2  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for four years in order to add excessive interest.

Double Recovery 

7.1  The claim is littered with made-up charges.

7.2  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.

7.3  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.

29. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”

30. In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

31. In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 2) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.

7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. 

7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). 

In Conclusion 

8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

What you've just written complicates things.

No, the snotty letter now needs to be changed so don't rush and send something off just yet.

We see you've done your reading up - well done - so you'll have seen we have several cases with our mate Kev.  His MO is to hide signs in the undergrowth where no-one will see them, and ignore consideration & grace periods, so he can issue his invoices.  His antics mean that motorists are legally in the right not to pay his invoices.  And so far he hasn't had the bottle to do court.

However, your case is different.  As much as we despise Kev, you didn't pay for the private car park that Kev "manages" but instead gave the money to a completely different car park run by the council.  In that case Kev does have the right to be miffed.  I've just a mock booking for Sea View car park on JustPark and it works no problem.

I think you have two decisions to make.

1.  Do you want to do a chargeback with your bank to get back the £60 you paid?  I did a chargeback about a year ago for the first time, i didn't have a clue what to do, but the regulars here guided me and everything was painless.

2.  Although you are probably legally in the wrong and may have outed yourself as the driver do you want to refuse to pay Kev for the other two?  If Kev won't do court then after all his bluster you'll be in the clear. However, as there are two tickets involved (potentially three if you go for chargeback) Kev's greed might win over his lack of backbone and he may go for court.

There's no easy solution.  Your choice.  We will of course support you all the way with what you decide.

I'm at work now but promise to look in later.

Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank. 

There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,

If you look at post 9 of rocky_sharma's thread for the same car park  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419324-metdcbl-windscreen-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-electric-bay-abuse-asda-arla-old-dairy-south-ruislip/#comments  MET do have decent signs stating "5 hours maximum stay" ...

... somewhere in the car park.  No doubt the decent signs will be few and far between and placed where no-one will see them, with rubbish or non-existent signage in the rest of the car park.

However they will lie and say the signage was superb.

So if you can get photos of what you actually saw while driving to the cinema that would help a lot.

In every other case we have Iceland have just immediately washed their hands of the matter and said to contact the parking company.

The fact they have not done so in your case is promising!

But obviously you're not out of the woods yet.

That is a great start.

Please do a new version with LFI's suggestions - don't worry about the numbering as it will have to be changed several times.

The other regulars will be on during the day to suggest tweaks - me very late as I lie in bed in the mornings but then have to work the afternoons and evenings till 10:30pm!

Yes!

Don't appeal.  If you read around the forum MET are a disgraceful company who we know very, very well.  They and the other private parking companies never, ever, ever accept appeals - ever.  All appealing does is risk throwing away your legal protections.

You're right that the signs are ambiguous.

Unfortunately Cineworld and Nandos will be telling the truth, it will be the Retail Park who called in MET.  I too haven't been able to find any contact details for the Retail Park.  As you've already been on to Cineworld and Nandos, could you ask them for an e-mail address for the Retail Park?

Also, if this place is near to you, can you go back and take photos of the signs near Cineworld that you could have seen?  If the signage is rubbish it's not your fault you were caught out. 

BTW, what you've received isn't a fine, it's a simple invoice, a private company doesn't have the power to issue fines.

There are still 21 days to go to the hearing.

Surely it's possible that P2G haven't sent their WS yet?

I think 13 months is quite sufficient time to read a simple upload guide, everyone else manages to do it straight away.

Post hidden - again.

External hosting sites used - again.

Your full name showing - again.

I've had to hide two of your posts.  Anyone clicking on your links gets sent to external sites.  On top of that your real name is showing on one screenshot.  Fellow Site Team member dx100uk has already politely asked -

On 24/05/2024 at 14:47, dx100uk said:

please dont use hosting sites.

copied and attached as per our upload guide.

dx

Anyway, jk2054 wants to see the communication you got from your local court which will have told you about the hearing date of 17 June, and will have mentioned a deadline for filing your Witness Statement.

Yes, ignore.

You haven't wasted our time at all - thanks for coming back and letting us know.

It's pure speculation but perhaps if your friend had dealt with their own case here they might have understood the legal situation better.

It makes no sense to pay months & months before the hearing.  In the last two MET court claims we have here MET bottled it and discontinued a few weeks before the hearing.

Even if it had got to a hearing, and even if MET had won, the judge would have disallowed the £70 Unicorn Food Tax MET made up plus a chunk of the interest.

The OP received the DQ - and didn't file it.

They received the "or else" order from the court regarding the DQ - and still didn't file it.

There's no hope in hell of a set aside.

Yes, the advice is to ignore APCOA until you receive a Letter of Claim.

However, experience has shown that some of the more decent supermarket chains will intervene and get these invoices cancelled, which is why LFI & I gave you the e-mail address of the Tesco CEO.  Have you written to Tesco?

Thread open.

Please upload here the Claim Form and Defence PDFs you mentioned in your Reported Post so the whole of the forum can see them.

Any reply from Sainsbury's?

Any reply from Tesco?

We look forward to seeing your Witness Statement - the clock is ticking.

Any reply from Iceland?

CEL are idiots, you'll be on a list of non-payers and they'll just automatically have sent out the LBC without bothering to check that the matter has already been dealt with by the courts.

It depends what you want to achieve.

1.  If you want to get rid of them do as dx says and also add a blistering letter warning them that'll you'll smash them for costs galore if they're so damn thick as to take the same matter to court twice. 

2.  If you want to annoy them and waste their time then ignore the LBC in the hope that they really will start a new court claim - that would lead to humiliation galore for them but also of course eat up your own spare time.

Well done on your victory!