Free Traffic Legal Advice

Post up the original PCN redacting personal details.

Never disclose who was driving - so always talk about the driver in the third person - "The driver went to McDonalds" etc.

You should have appealed to POPLA but you didn’t. Not that you’ll ever pay a penny to MET if you follow the advice given here, but you are now looking for this process to take around 9-12+ months from the date of the initial PCN before it concludes with a discontinuation of the claim.

You could try and get them to issue a POPLA code by making a formal complaint and fibbing about never receiving the initial Notice to Keeper (NtK) and requiring them to consider the complaint as an appeal as required by the PPSCoP §11.2, but MET are notoriously vexatious and it may or may not be successful.

Also, even if you do get a POPLA code, there is no guarantee that the assessor for your case is not one of the more intellectually malnourished morons that is conned by METs mendacious attempt to fool them into believing that Southgate Park is not covered by airport byelaws.

Just send the following formal complaint to MET at complaints@metparking.com and CC yourself:

Re: Formal Complaint and Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [PCN ref], Vehicle [VRM], Location: McDonald’s, Southgate Park (Stansted)

Dear Sirs,

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle.

The first time I became aware that MET Parking Services were pursuing any parking charge in respect of this vehicle was when I received a debt recovery letter from your agent, DRP, dated [date of DRA letter]. I have never been made aware of any prior Notice to Keeper or other correspondence from MET about this matter.

Accordingly, I rebut any presumption that a Notice to Keeper (NtK) was properly served. Any presumption of service under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 is displaced by my clear statement that no such notice has been received at my address. You are put to strict proof that:

1. A Notice to Keeper relating to this PCN was in fact generated and physically handed to a postal operator for delivery;
2. It was correctly addressed and fully prepaid; and
3. The address used was the address supplied by the DVLA, accurately transcribed.

Generic descriptions of your usual processes, or a hybrid mail “batch” log, will not suffice. If you maintain that an NtK was served, please provide:

• A copy of the actual NtK allegedly posted;
• A copy of the DVLA keeper data you obtained (showing the address used); and
• Any postal or hybrid-mail manifest that specifically evidences acceptance of that exact item into the postal system.

Unless and until you can provide conclusive proof that a compliant NtK was properly served, the position remains that I have only now had a genuine opportunity to understand and challenge this charge, upon receipt of your debt collector’s letter.

This letter therefore serves both as:

1. A formal complaint about your handling of my data and the escalation to a debt recovery agent without first ensuring service of the NtK; and
2. A formal representation/appeal against PCN [PCN ref].

Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 11.2, where a complaint clearly relates to the validity of a parking charge, you are required to route it through your full challenge and appeals process. In compliance with the PPSCoP, you must therefore:

• Place this charge on hold;
• Recall the matter from any debt recovery agent; and
• Treat this correspondence as a formal appeal against the PCN.

For completeness, and without prejudice to the above service point, I also dispute that this charge is lawfully recoverable from me as Keeper for the following reasons:

1. The location known as Southgate Park, Stansted is within the Stansted Airport byelaws boundary and is therefore not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”).
2. As a result, you cannot rely on PoFA to transfer any liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
3. The driver is not identified at the time of the alleged event and you have no lawful basis to pursue me as Keeper on any purported contractual liability.

In light of the above, the only reasonable outcome is cancellation of this Parking Charge, removal of my details from any debt recovery agency, and written confirmation that the matter is closed.

If, despite this, you refuse to cancel the charge, you are required to:

• Issue a full, reasoned rejection letter addressing each point raised above; and
• Provide a valid POPLA verification code so that I may refer the matter to independent adjudication in accordance with the PPSCoP.

Please also confirm in your response:

1. Whether you maintain that an NtK was served in this case and, if so, the exact date of posting you rely on; and
The full address obtained from the DVLA and the exact address printed on the alleged NtK.
2. Until you have either cancelled the charge or issued a POPLA code following proper consideration of this complaint/appeal, I will treat this matter as formally in dispute. Any further contact from debt recovery agents in the meantime will be reported as a breach of the PPSCoP and as misuse of my personal data.

I look forward to your prompt confirmation that PCN [PCN ref] has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper

Don’t use chatGPT or similar, wait for advice here which will be better, from a real human.

Otherwise, we’d just turn off the real people here and let AI screw up everything.

Your name, as registered keeper, is known.

Please can you show us what they are calling “proof of posting”? I’m almost certain it will turn out not to be proof of actual first-class posting at all, but just a hybrid-mail receipt / batch log which only proves that an item was queued for printing and handover to a postal operator.

Those systems are usually a slower 2–3 working day service and do not of themselves prove that:


If all they’ve produced is a generic hybrid-mail or batch manifest, that is not proof of proper posting for the purposes of relying on any presumption of delivery.

In any event, the timing and delivery of the NtK isn’t the real issue here. Southgate Park (McDonald’s) is within the Stansted Airport byelaws boundary, so it is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of PoFA. That means MET can never lawfully transfer liability from the unknown driver to you as registered keeper, no matter how perfectly they claim their NtK was posted or worded.

In their NtK they explicitly state that they are holding the Keeper liable. They are asserting a statutory right they simply do not have at this location. That is misleading and plainly unlawful.

So:


2. Do not pay them a penny, and continue to ignore Debt Recovery Plus. They are just noisy letter-writers with no powers.[/indent]

Once we’ve seen exactly what MET have produced as “proof” of posting, we can firm up the next steps, but this will remain a non-PoFA, airport-byelaws location where the keeper is not liable.

Your "they sent" something which is then paraphrased, does not help. Please show the text of the letter so we can formulate a suitable response. Is it from MET or a third party?

The Hybrid mail document is some evidence of dispatch, but it is not automatically conclusive proof for Interpretation Act purposes if service is properly put in issue.

For the Interpretation Act presumption, the sender must be able to show, in substance, that the document was properly addressed, pre-paid, and posted.

A hybrid-mail “certificate of postage” like this can help to show a document was processed for mailing on a particular date and time, but it may still be challenged on two fronts:

1. Posted: it does not necessarily prove that a physical item actually entered the postal system. It may evidence a step in the sender’s mailing workflow rather than proof that the letter was handed to the postal operator. If challenged, the sender is usually expected to produce supporting evidence such as the provider’s posting/hand-over logs, a manifest, or a witness statement explaining the mailing process and confirming handover for post.

2. Address: provided the address used was correct, that satisfies the “properly addressed” element. If the address is correct, that part is not the problem.

So, in short: it is better than nothing and may be accepted as evidence of sending, but if you are disputing service, you can still put them to strict proof of actual posting/hand-over (and of pre-payment, if that is in issue), not merely document generation or mail processing.

If the response is from MET then respond with the following:

Subject: PCN [reference] – Southgate Park (Stansted) – Response to “Do not ignore” letter

I write further to your recent “Do not ignore” letter concerning PCN [reference], enclosing a copy Notice to Keeper and a hybrid mail print-out.

As stated in my previous correspondence, the first time I became aware that MET were pursuing any parking charge in respect of this vehicle was on receipt of a debt recovery letter. I did not receive any earlier Notice to Keeper at my address, and I continue to rebut any presumption that such a notice was properly served.

The hybrid mail document you have now provided may show that an item was queued in an electronic system, but it is not conclusive proof of actual posting or delivery. In any event, the location in question (McDonald’s, Southgate Park) is within the Stansted Airport byelaws boundary and is therefore not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. You cannot, as a matter of law, transfer any alleged liability from driver to keeper under PoFA in this case.

I do not admit to being the driver, and you have no lawful basis to pursue me as registered keeper for any contractual parking charge. Your continued demands, and threats of an increased balance to £280 for spurious “legal fees”, are neither supported by PoFA nor by the private parking Code of Practice.

For the avoidance of doubt, my previous letter stands as both a formal complaint and a formal appeal under PPSCoP section 11.2. You are required either to:

– Confirm cancellation of PCN [reference] and remove my details from any debt recovery agency; or
– Issue a detailed rejection and provide a valid POPLA verification code so that I may refer the matter for independent adjudication.

Any further contact from debt recovery agents while this matter is in dispute will be treated as harassment and misuse of my personal data and may be raised in any future complaints or proceedings.

I look forward to your confirmation that this charge has been cancelled, or, failing that, to receipt of a POPLA code.

Yours faithfully,

We don’t need to see or know about useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.