MET parking ticket - Stansted airport McDonalds - appeal rejected

ltyczynska

Hello all,

I hope someone can lend me some of the helpful advice i have read in other threads.

I was driving my boyfriend's car and parked at McDonald's at Stansted Airport to quickly grab my mum some lunch before her flight. I read on the sign that I could stay for 60 minutes for free. My boyfriend then received a ticket 37 days later from MET Parking. I called McDonald's and Starbucks to try and work out why I'd received the ticket as it was not clear on the 'Notice to registered keeper' was not clear. They advised me that I was parked in a Starbucks space instead of a McDonald's one.

So I decided to write a very polite appeal to MET parking explaining that I had read that I could stay for 60 minutes for free and apologising for the confusion but the sign must have not been clear.

This was rejected!

My rejection said:
We note your comments however the charge notice was not issued for exceeding the maximum permitted stay it was issued because you left your car in this car park without paying for parking and left the site. The car park you parked in is not McDonald’s car park, their car park is adjacent to their restaurant. 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. You have acknowledged that you left your vehicle in this car park while you went to McDonald's therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
If you had wanted to park in this car park and go to McDonald’s you could have done so by paying the appropriate parking tariff.
Turning to the points you raised in your email:
We note your comments however we are sure there are clear sufficient signs that comply with all relevant regulation and legislation at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists. It remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with any terms and conditions.


How would I have any idea that McDonalds's is not classed as 'Southgate Park'? I don't have a picture of the parking sign and it is quite a distance away from my house to go and photograph it.

I would really appreciate any help on how to appeal to Popla. I have identified myself as the person driving (which I now know from reading the NEWBIES thread that this was a mistake) and the appeal rejection was addressed to me, but is there anything I can do?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Redx

construct a popla appeal, with all the usual points like no landowner contract , poor signage etc , minus the POFA2012 and keeper arguments that would have protected you if you had not blabbed about who the driver was (you will know not to blab in future)


when completed , post that appeal below for critique

Coupon-mad

So I decided to write a very polite appeal to MET parking explaining that I had read that I could stay for 60 minutes for free and apologising for the confusion but the sign must have not been clear.

That was terrible (sorry). I wish you had come here earlier instead of sending that, which blabbed about who was driving and more or less admitted error.

Parking firms are not normal companies with customer service ethics. These firms have no human customers and they do not give a sh...t about consumers, only about money. There agenda is NOT 'parking management' but 'making money out of people for no service whatsoever'.

You need to read other MET POPLA appeals by searching the forum.

We assume when you read 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' near the top of this forum, before posting, you saw the POPLA template appeal points in the third post of that sticky thread.

ltyczynska

Hello,

Do you think this appeal letter below will do the trick? Feeling like an idiot for not googling before appealing! I panicked as I've never had one of these tickets before!



I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds:


1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.


2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.


3. MET parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.


4. MET parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.


5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.


1.The charges are penalties.
The charges are represented as a failure to pay which is disputed. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable.”
£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for free. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. The longer a driver stays in the various shops then the more profit is made. £100 is clearly a penalty. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. £100 cannot be so as the figures quoted include business costs.

I require MET parking to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. Parking Eye cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner allows free parking for shoppers and several hundred pounds were spent then there is no loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

When one looks at the sign one sees that non blue badge holders must display, face up, a blue badge to park in disabled bays and are charged £100 if they do not display then it becomes even clearer that £100 is to deter people from misusing disabled bays and that £100 is an arbitrary amount charged for all transgressions and as such is an unenforceable penalty.


2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.



3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi

MET parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that MET parking has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.


In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.


So I require the un-redacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Parking eye and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013.


I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."

The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.




4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.

The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not. Upon returning to the car park after receiving this unjustified 'charge notice' to check the alleged terms at a later date, I had to get out of my car to even read the larger font on the signs, and the smaller font was only readable when standing under the sign.

When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"


5. ANPR ACCURACY

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator inParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.


For these reasons the appeal should be upheld and the charge dismissed.

Coupon-mad

1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.

That tells me that you looked at an appeal that was 4 years old, or older. That argument went out with the ark, and the entire appeal is truly ancient and will LOSE.

When I said search for MET POPLA I meant on the forum, not Google for any old result.

ADVANCED SEARCH, then 'show results as posts'.

I also said:

We assume when you read 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' near the top of this forum, before posting, you saw the POPLA template appeal points in the third post of that sticky thread.

ltyczynska

Ok understood. I read back over the NEWBIES thread and then found an example used in an appeal in 2018. I'd appreciate your comments on the below:



POPLA Verification Code: XXXXX
MET Parking Services PCN no: XXXXX

A Notice to Registered Keeper from MET Parking Services dated 17th August 2018 which stated that at 13:08 on 8th July 2018 at Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY the vehicle with registration number XXXX was observed parked in an apparent breach of the terms and conditions. The notice states the reason “Vehicle left in Southgate Park car park without payment made for parking and occupants left Southgate Park premises.”

I am writing to you as the driver and would be grateful if you would please consider my
appeal for the following reasons:
1) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
2) The site boundary is not clear.
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) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
5) As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 the contract terms and notices are not fair
6) Amount demanded is a penalty

Further to the objections above, 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 8th July 2018 but is dated 17th August 2018 which is more than this notice period.

1) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention.
The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated as left the premises are still photos. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that drivers can see while on site, in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.
Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site' this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park.

The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of McDonalds patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the current GDPR legislation.
Given some parking operators' modus operandi of handing anyone on site (landowners, local busybodies, shop workers, office workers) a camera and telling them they will pay a bounty for 'PCNs' issued, it cannot be assumed that the person who took the images is even a parking firm employee. Even if they are, this is still a random person with no DBS check clearance, taking photos not of cars and PCNs (as per their limited licence by the landowner) but of people and families going about their daily life. MET are then processing these people's personal images and sending those photos in the post, unsolicited, to a registered keeper of a car who may or may not know the persons in the photographs, who may be nothing to do with that vehicle at all.

2) The site boundary is not clear.
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? McDonald’s address (for the building in this area) is Southgate Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY and Starbuck’s address is London Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY, so any reasonable person would see that the parking area around McDonald’s building is Southgate Park.
In addition, McDonald’s offers a drive through service and the entry point into this would presumably (since there isn’t any boundary marking) be from Southgate Park.

There is only one entrance to the Southgate Park site. Leaving the site, to a reasonable person, would mean to leave the vehicle within this boundary and go to a place outside the boundary. A reasonable person would understand that this condition would be in place to stop people parking and possibly going to the airport. There isn’t any clearly defined boundary to show that one part of a carpark is different to another part of the car park.

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.

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 site is split into sections. As the driver turns into the site, this is the view.

There are two signs which state McDonald’s Customers Only Maximum Stay 60 minutes.

An initial glance as a driver passes the signs 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.
Further as the driver moves further into the site, the sign below can be seen. Again, it isn’t clear that there is a split between the parking a vehicle in one part of the site and parking in a different part of the site.

The road markings also suggest that McDonald’s drive thru takes the driver through the same car park.

There are different MET parking signs all with differing wording within 20 yards of each other. The site as any reasonable person would presume is the whole of the area. If the driver had parked here and gone to the BP fuelling garage then this could be seen as leaving the site. It would be unreasonable to expect a driver to move the car from one area of a single car park to another to satisfy some a term on a sign just so that they could eat.
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.

4) 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; 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

5) As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62; the contract terms and notices are not fair
The Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 62 states that there is a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.
As it is not clear that there is a boundary between the different parts of the site, this is contrary to the CRA, as it "causes a significant imbalance in the parties; rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer" and as such (1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer."

6) Amount demanded is a penalty
The 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 is neither clear not ample and cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.
To suggest that the car park shared by Starbucks, McDonalds and some other food outlets are different car parks (albeit managed by MET) is ludicrous. Further to attempt to obtain £100 for the use of a car park for approximately 30 minutes when the driver has stayed within the physical boundary of the space is nothing more than a penalty. It is this type of practice that has led to the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19, currently going through the Houses of Parliament where drivers will receive new legal protections from unscrupulous private parking operators.


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

Coupon-mad

That's good, except you - as admitted driver - can't rely on this (the bit that would have been the 100% win, had you not appealed as driver, is in the bin):

Further to the objections above, 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 8th July 2018 but is dated 17th August 2018 which is more than this notice period.

The rest is good, albeit I liked one earlier today where a poster went to town objecting to Body Worn Video Surveillance where the ticketer looks like they filmed and followed a driver leaving the site (like your case):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74865648#Comment_74865648

Even if you are not sure if they use video there, I'd say have a section on that too, about intrusive data capture and all the things that person argued, and put MET to 'strict proof' of their full compliance with the law about such surveillance...make it so hard for them to contest, that they drop it.

ltyczynska

Hello again!

I submitted my appeal to POPLA and I've now received a huge amount of evidence from MET parking trying to counter each and every point.

I've no idea what to do now!!

The evidence feels like a complete invasion of privacy with pictures of me and my mum and so much detail about where we went and when. I'm so shocked!

Section A:
Location
South Gate Park A120
Stansted Airport CM24 1AA
Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site – these terms can be seen on the photograph of the sign attached in Section E
• Pay by phone car park. 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers while they remain on the premises only. Tariffs apply thereafter. No free stay for visitors to premises not located in Southgate Park. Please Note McDonald’s is not in Southgate Park. See tariff signs for details
• No return to site within 60 minutes of vehicles departing
• Maximum free stay is 60 minutes. You may extend your stay up to a total of 3
hours by using the pay by phone service. If you wish to park here while you visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, you must pay from when your vehicle enters the car park
• Vehicles must park within marked bays and not park in such a way as to cause obstruction to others
• Vehicles parked, stopped, or waiting in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times
• Vehicles must not park on yellow or white lines or in hatched areas Case Summary
The charge notice was issued as the driver had parked their car and then left the premises without paying for parking.
This is a pay by phone car park and it is managed using ANPR CCTV cameras and parking attendants. In order to attract customers to the premises situated within Southgate Park our client offers a free stay period to those customers while they remain on site using the tenant’s premises.
The car park is situated very close to the Stansted airport perimeter road and next to a McDonald’s restaurant, the car park suffers from abuse from motorists using it to park whilst they go next door to the McDonald’s restaurant who then do not pay to park.
The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the site. There are a total of 19

signs located at this site representing comprised of 12 signs which inform motorists of the terms and conditions of parking in this car park and the remaining 7 signs inform drivers of how they can make payment to extend their stay within the car park. The ratio of terms and conditions signs is 1 sign to approximately every 4 parking spaces. All signs are metal and made using Oralite a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA2. This is the European Harmonised Standard that has been set for Road Traffic Signs.
In addition to their reflective nature the signs are illuminated by lamp posts they are attached to or adjacent to, ambient light and light from the vehicles themselves entering and parking on the site.
On 8 July 2018 vehicle xxxxxx was recorded as entering the car park and subsequently parking. The occupants of the vehicle were then recorded exiting the premises on foot, leaving their car in the car park and no payment was made for parking.
Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA and a notice was sent to the registered keeper.
On 18 September we received an appeal from Miss xxxx xxxx, the driver, on the grounds that she had not realized the two restaurants were separate premises and she was a customer of McDonald’s. She states she read the signs to see how long she was able to stay and if she had to pay.
When the appeals team completed their investigation, they sent a letter to the appellant explaining that the appeal had been refused and why.
In her appeal to POPLA xxx xxxxx states:
• There is insufficient evidence of the contravention
As acknowledged by Miss xxxxxx she parked her car in Southgate Park and went to McDonald’s with her mother and then returned to the car park with her mother. This is also evidence by the photographs included in Section E of our evidence pack.
Miss xxxxx states in her appeal that she read the signs where she parked. As shown on the signs included in Section E of our evidence pack, the signs clearly state that there is a free stay period for motorists while they are customers of Southgate Park, that McDonald’s is not on Southgate Park, and that if they wish to park in this car park while go to sites that that are not on Southgate Park such as McDonald’s they must pay for parking from when their vehicle enters the car park. The evidence in Section E demonstrates that no payment was made for parking.
It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
• The site boundary is unclear and there is insufficient signage
McDonald’s car park is approached from a different entrance prior to passing McDonald’s restaurant, it has it’s own entrance and its own signage and does not adjoin Southgate Park’s car park at all. McDonald’s drive thru is also accessed from the road before you reach Southgate Park.
Miss xxxxx also notes that the signs in the two different car parks, McDonald’s and Southgate Park are different, for ease of reference the ones in McDonald’s car park are red and clearly state that the car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers while they are on those premises only. They are entirely different to the blue and white signs shown in Section E of our evidence pack.
Miss xxxxx also states there is only one entrance to Southgate Park, this is correct you arrive at the entrance after you pass McDonald’s and the entrance to their car park and the entrance to their drive-thru.
As demonstrated by the photographic evidence in Section E Southgate Park has entrance signs either side of the vehicle entrance to the park, therefore there is clear demarcation. Section E also contains copies of the signs, a site map showing their location, photographs of the signs in situ and also photographs showing Miss xxxxxx parked in close proximity to one of our signs.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 19 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that this is a pay by phone car park, that there is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers while they remain on the premises only, no free stay for visitors to premises not located in Southgate Park, that McDonald’s is not in Southgate Park. They also specifically state that if motorists wish to park here while they visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, they must pay to park from when their vehicle enters the car park.
Therefore the signs clearly advise motorists that McDonald’s is not on Southgate Park and they must pay to park in this car park if they wish to visit McDonald’s.

• No evidence of landowner authority
We have also included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
• The terms and notices are unfair and the charge is a punitive penalty
We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis which may be found at (link). This ruling revolved around a charge of similar size and nature and the judges ruled that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable.
• Non-compliance with the Data Protection Act
There are no breaches of the Data Protection legislation, all relevant impact assessments have been made and as demonstrated in Section E and on the Notice to Keeper included in Section B there is ample signage advising motorists of their rights under the data protection legislation and regulations, these rights are repeated on the notice sent to the keeper. There is also clear signage advising visitors to the site that images of vehicles and pedestrians will be captured.
• The notice to keeper was not issued within the time limits for PoFA
As explained in Section C of our evidence pack Miss xxxx has acknowledged being the driver, therefore we are not seeking to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act. She has stated in her appeal included in Section D that she was the driver.
In summary, the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this car park. They include that: this a pay by phone car park; there is a free stay period of 60 minutes for Southgate Park customers while they remain on the premises only; and if you wish to park here while you visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, you must pay from when your vehicle enters the car park. The evidence demonstrates, and Miss xxxxx acknowledges, she left her car in the car park while she left the premises and did not pay for parking therefore we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused.

Coupon-mad

I submitted my appeal to POPLA and I've now received a huge amount of evidence from MET parking trying to counter each and every point.

I've no idea what to do now!!

That's strange, seeing as this always happens and the NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you about POPLA stage and commenting on the evidence...go and have another look, you should have been ready for this simple stage.

The evidence feels like a complete invasion of privacy with pictures of me and my mum and so much detail about where we went and when. I'm so shocked!

DON'T HANG ABOUT, ACT ON THOSE FEELINGS AS THEY ARE RIGHT.

Send an IMMEDIATE online complaint to the INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (a complaint/concern abut data processing) about this invasion of privacy and excessive following of women by someone wearing a body-worn or handheld camera who was not involved in upholding the law but trying to profit from an unfair charge. Point out to the ICO that this feels like a trap and invasion of privacy. Tell them that surely, the less data-intrusive and proper thing for a parking firm to do is PROPERLY and CLEARLY make the rules clear for people so the boundary is unmistakable and they don't get followed and photographed against their knowledge.

To give you ammo and words for the ICO complaint, look again at the link I gave you in post #7, where a poster went to town objecting to Body Worn Video Surveillance in a detailed complaint. Do the same in your ICO complaint.

Re POPLA:

You sadly wrote such an awful first appeal you might lose at POPLA, as you know, you should have appealed as keeper and made the scammers prove who went offsite, but you admitted the lot which might mean that appeal is lost. However this is NOT a charge that anyone would pay in their right mind, and POPLA is not binding on you. Big wow if you lose, so what?!

Write some comments about their evidence and consider whether it shows who the two ladies are (clue - it doesn't).

And really go for the ICO complaint as that will help deal with MET robustly if the POPLA appeal is lost, they will have to answer to the ICO.

beamerguy

Nasty little place, Mcdonalds at Stansted

Went once, never again. Maybe it's why there is a trip advisor page with plenty of others complaining

Your turn to add your comments ?

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g1096436-d11946926-Reviews-McDonald_s-Birchanger_Essex_England.html

The_Deep

Write bad stuff on their TripAdvisor and Facebook pages. Watch the video below.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed in the house as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an
M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.