MET - PCN - Southgate Park, Stansted

nosferatu1001

You will be aware you only have 2000 CHARACTERS to rebut with
So, start again
Pare it down. Remove quotes. SHORT BULLETS only.

Feelcheated

Ah! 2000 characters not words!! Hmm.

Umkomaas

Feelcheated wrote: »

Ah! 2000 characters not words!! Hmm.

Yep, you've got just over 3,800 there, so need to cut by a half.

Use bulletpoints. Take out some of the legginess in sentences, reduce some of the detailed explanations that are more scene-setting than hard-hitting rebuttals.

Feelcheated

2000 characters...

I rebut MET!!!8217;s response
1) Site boundary is NOT clear. MET perceive signage as a boundary. Boundary is a line marking limits of an area (Ox Dict). A boundary agreement is the boundary between properties eg hedge, post, fence a feature marks the boundary. (Gov UK web). None exists in this instance.
2) Since above applies the photographic evidence cannot be sufficient evidence of any contravention. In fact, MET claim a total of 19 signs are displayed on Sbucks side and that as they deem signage as boundary a motorist wouldn!!!8217;t know that they have left the premises without reading all the other MET signs including any on McDonald!!!8217;s section.
3) MET!!!8217;s contract Schedule 1 !!!8211; The Site is Starbucks Carpark, Stansted Amenity Area, A120, Stansted Airport, but this address hasn!!!8217;t been used in any correspondence (Section B or SECTION C). MET refers to !!!8216;Southgate Park!!!8217; Stansted. As the address isn!!!8217;t the same how can it be concluded where boundary of sites exist.
4) MET!!!8217;s T&Cs of Parking on Site state !!!8220;Southgate Park !!!8211; Stansted Customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park, surveys may be carried out. No free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not in Southgate Park!!!8221; however, Schedule 5 !!!8211; Site Terms and Conditions, Authorised Use, states, !!!8220;Southgate Park !!!8211; Stansted Customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park, surveys may be carried out.!!!8221; [END] There is no text in contract using the wording !!!8216;No free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not in Southgate Park!!!8217;. MET applying different T&Cs to the contract.
5) Schedule 4 !!!8211; Term of Agreement. MET confirms no change to original agreement. The contract allows for the installation of an ANPR System to record vehicle activity however, there is no mention of allowing CCTV to record people.
6) There is 1 entry from the road - the sign doesn!!!8217;t state the car park is sub divided. Why not paint the bays?
I maintain no contract was made.

Feelcheated

Hmmm, thanks Popla! Skipped across the fact that there is no obvious boundary.


So next stage...and newbies thread says...

It changes nothing, just takes you back to square one. It is not a reason to pay, even though the decision will tell you to! Searching this forum for 'lost POPLA':

looking now....

Feelcheated

and the advice appears to be......


sit tight,
ignore any Debt collector letters
see if this is taken to Court (A Court hearing doesn't necessarily follow a popla appeal)

in addition lobby local MP

Coupon-mad

Exactly right.

Lucky that MET never sue anyone, but keep all paperwork for 6 years, in case.

Umkomaas

Has POPLA turn down your appeal? Can we see their reasoning? Please do us a favour and put some paragraphs into their wall of text response.

Feelcheated

Yes, appeal turned down.

paulioooo

Did POPLA ever give their reason for rejection? Have MET tried to contact you since?