MET - PCN - Southgate Park, Stansted

Feelcheated

Hi,


looking for some assistance please.
I found this forum a little too late - but hopefully not too late.
I have read some of the notes for new posters - which is why I have said I found the forum a little late.....as I have already responded on the MET appeals page.


I stopped off for refreshment at the services using the car park noting that I had a free hour - so kept within the 1 hour and went to pick up point at airport.


I thought nothing more until I received in the post a PCN from MET. I logged onto their portal and saw photos of my vehicle and photos (blurred facial) of myself and my child getting out of the car crossing the car park past Starbucks and then returning to my car. The photos have time stamps.


I assumed they were saying that I had exceeded the 1 hour and appealed on their portal. I hadn't seen this forum at this point.

I did select Driver as the choice not Keeper. My appeal stated, "I was issued with a parking ticket (dated 11th June 2018) for parking at Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY on 03May 2018. I believe that this ticket was issued unfairly. I am not liable for the amount payable because:
My car was parked there only between approx 17:00 and approx 17:42 (less than 1 hour). The signage indicated I was entitled to park at these times without charge. I understand that you are obliged to provide evidence that the car was parked in breach of the rules."


On 25th June they sent an email with a letter stating,

"Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge notice. After careful consideration we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
We note your comments however the charge notice was not issued for overstay it was issued because you left your car
in this car park without paying for parking and left the site. . The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the car park is a pay by phone car park, that there
is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers, while they are on the premises only, that McDonald's is not on Southgate Park and that if you wish to park here and visit locations that are not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald's you must pay for parking. Our records show that your vehicle was left in this car park while you left Southgate Park walking in the direction of McDonald's therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
We have attached a copy of the sign that is displayed at this car park as well as a photograph of your car parked in close proximity to one of these signs. It remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions.
This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:
1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days of today’s date. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will revert to £100.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at:popla using verification code: xxxxxxxxx8 Please note that POPLA will consider
the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law.
Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA’s decision NOT go in your favour, you will
be required to pay the full amount of £100. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services
provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.
3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action"



Sorry, if I have missed some hints to follow but the guidance I was picking up from the forum appeared to be for people that hadn't already contacted MET using the appeal process.


Any guidance welcome, thank you in anticipation.

Quentin

Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the newbies faq thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread


Go there now to learn about the game you are caught up in and how to deal with this


You already made an error in not reading the ticket properly/revealing the driver etc!


You now move on to POPLA


Read up in the FAQ on how to appeal to POPLA


Put your draft appeal up for comment before sending it

Coupon-mad

the guidance I was picking up from the forum appeared to be for people that hadn't already contacted MET using the appeal process.

Put MET POPLA Starbucks into the search this forum box, or MET POPLA left site

Read all the other threads with a POPLA appeal already written that will be perfect.

People need to search forums first, not post on them first. True of ALL forums!

Feelcheated

Thanks for the info. As a few naïve mistakes have already been made - as confirmed with the above posts - most of what I could find (which referred to not guidance on not providing driver info) was info about keeper.


Anyway here is a proposed response to POPLA - any guidance accepted, thanks again.



POPLA Ref: *********
MET Parking Services PCN no: ********

A Notice to Registered Keeper from MET Parking Services dated 11th June 2018 which stated that at 17:42 on 3rd May 2018 at Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY the vehicle registered to me was observed parked in an apparent breach of the terms and conditions. The notice states the reason as !!!8220;Vehicle left in Southgate Park car park without payment made for parking and occupants left Southgate Park premises!!!8221;.

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my
appeal for the following reasons.
1) There was no PCN attached to the windscreen of the vehicle.
2) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
5) The site boundary is not clear.
6) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
7) Amount demanded is a penalty.



1) Non-compliance with various requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

2) I understand that the notice to keeper [Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 section 9 (4) and (5)] must be given by sending it by post so that it is delivered within 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The notice to keeper states that parking took place on 3rd May 2018 but is dated 11th June 2018 which is more than this notice period.

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions !!!8211; such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the
land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. In addition, there is no reference as the driver enters the car park that the !!!8220;site!!!8221; is split into !!!8220;sections!!!8221;. An initial glance a driver passes a sign would pick up that there is one car park with 60 minutes free stay. This is a common term and condition at paying car parks to prevent over stay. A reasonable person would understand that 60 minutes stay at the car park to use the various services is sufficient and to prevent long stay parking associated with the nearby airport.

< a picture of their sign that they have showing will be displayed>


It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion.
They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.


5) The site boundary is not clear. The notice to keeper states, !!!8220;your vehicle was left in this car park while you left Southgate Park walking in the direction of McDonald's!!!8221;.
There are no legible markings distinguishing the boundary of Southgate Park. There is one entrance to the site by vehicle. How does one know that one has left the site? The McDonald!!!8217;s address (on site) is Southgate Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY, so any reasonable person would see that the parking area around McDonald!!!8217;s building is Southgate. In addition, McDonald!!!8217;s offers a drive through service and the entry point into this would presumably (since there isn!!!8217;t any boundary marking) be from !!!8220;Southgate Park!!!8221;

< a picture of the drive through section will be attached>


6) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention. The notice states, !!!8220;while you left Southgate Park walking in the direction of McDonald's!!!8221; but walking in the direction of McDonald!!!8217;s doesn!!!8217;t mean that McDonald!!!8217;s was used. The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated as left the premises; Still photos do not account for the location of the driver during the alleged contravention.
Where is the boundary?

<a picture of the site will be attached>

7) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage
cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.



I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Quentin

You are using Pofa arguments when you already have agreed to the PPC you were the driver in your original appeal???

Coupon-mad

I'd put this as point #1 instead of your point #1 that you can't use if you admitted to driving:

6) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

Please tell us you didn't also admit to going offsite?

Feelcheated

Quentin wrote: »

You are using Pofa arguments when you already have agreed to the PPC you were the driver in your original appeal???

Ah, yes, I did remove this in the body, need to alter this in the bullet points.
Thank you

Feelcheated

1) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
4) The site boundary is not clear.
5) Amount demanded is a penalty.



So if the above are used - and I remove the other 2 aspects - would this be sufficient do you think? Cheers.

Coupon-mad

Yes but I would be tempted to remove #5, as POPLA don't get it.

Quentin

Feelcheated wrote: »

Ah, yes, I did remove this in the body, need to alter this in the bullet points.
Thank you

You have Pofa arguments in both bullet points list and the body

Feelcheated

"You have Pofa arguments in both bullet points list and the body"
I will remove these so I'm just using the points in post 8 (without point 5 as suggested in post num 9).