MET PCN at Gatwick Mcdonalds

[FriendlyChap]

Hi all,

I have received the attached Notice to Registered Keeper which is addressed to me personally as the registered keeper, so one would assume they have already gone to DVLA to obtain my details. I have also received further letters from DRP however these have been ignored as per other threads advise.

The driver has briefly parked in the disabled zone after a extremely long journey to Gatwick Airport and feeling sick. It was no longer than 10 minutes max after a brief trip to the toilet and quick refreshment from McDonald's.

The key thing here is MET Parking look to have failed to comply with the 14 day notice period as the issue of the notice was 59 calendar days from the date of the supposed contravention (9th Nov 2018 - 7th Jan 2019).

What makes this interesting is the photographic evidence available via www.appealmetparking.com for the driver cannot be found and the following message is produced - ''Sorry, we cannot find this ticket - please check the details you have provided are correct.''

There is a letter 'Ostell' normally advises to appeal regarding a failure of issue within the 14 day period but want to be assured this is the correct way to go. Obviously this will be done over post as no details of this case is found via the appeal website.

Any guidance and advice would be greatly appreciated.

Many Thanks

[charitynjw]

Hi & welcome

I take it by the content of your post that you are well aware not to ID who was driving/parking at the time?
If so, keep on keeping on not doing so!

Was there a windscreen notice (Notice to Driver), or is it ANPR with only a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK)?

Oh, & could you post up a pic of the reverse side of the NtK, please?

[FriendlyChap]

Hi charitynjw


Indeed - certainly do after reading multiple posts on here.

To confirm there was not a windscreen notice, just a postal Notice to Registered Keeper.

Picture on reverse of NtK attached. Any difficulties reading let me know and I can retake.

Many Thanks,

[ostell]

Yes send that failing to deliver within 14 days. They have also failed to give the warning to keeper 9 (2) (f)

[charitynjw]

My guess is that they intend actioning via common law breach of contract.....which requires the driver's ID (No transfer of liability to registered keeper.)

And the name of that person is.....err....on the tip of me tongue, it is......umm, Bill?....Mabel?.......

I remember...Fred Fernakapan !

[ostell]

This perhaps?

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc

First class post with free certificate of posting.

If they reject and give you a POPLA code then you throw all the POFA fails into the POPLA appeal.

[FriendlyChap]

Thanks both - much appreciated.

ostell - Hi, I have used that template, I also added in 'failing to give the warning to the keeper, contrary to section 9 (2) (f) of the Act.'

Have sent post off to the required address and will let you know the response.

Thanks again

[FriendlyChap]

Hi both,

In response to the letter with the 'Failing to give warning to keeper / failure to deliver within 14 days', the attached letter from MET was received. Get the understanding they are shifting responsibility onto Debt Recovery Plus for this case.

What also is attached is what it looks like DRP's final letter threatening with court action.

Please advise the next best action on this?

Many Thanks

[charitynjw]

Numpties!

If they choose to involve DRP, that's their decision.
But if they are relying on PoFA, they cannot artificially inflate the charge...that's a no-no.
& if they're not using PoFA, then their beef is with the driver, not the RK.

DRP are safe to ignore. (Privity of contract)