Southgate Park - Stansted Airport (McDonald's, Starbucks). POPLA stage. NTK after 14 days

cation

Hello. The keeper of a vehicle received a Notice to Keeper from MET Parking which was issued 17 days after the alleged breach of parking conditions at this site. The driver is alleged to have 'left the site in the direction of Mcdonald's'. The driver has not been identified by the registered keeper, and it has been pointed out by the keeper to MET that they are unable to pursue the keeper as their NTK was received too late. This was rejected and a POPLA code issued. The keeper would hope that this would therefore be a straightforward rejection by POPLA or a decline to contest by MET.

Here is the keeper's draft of a POPLA appeal which they have based on various posts here and amended accordingly. If there are any thoughts on this, they will be passed onto the keeper, and of course keep you will all be informed of the outcome once it has been submitted.

With thanks,



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXX
MET Parking Services “Parking Charge Notice”: XXXX

A notice to registered keeper was issued on XXX and received by myself, the registered keeper of XXXXX for the alleged contravention of ‘Breach of Terms and Conditions’’ at Southgate Park, Stansted. 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 registered keeper and appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am writing my appeal with the following points in mind:

1) The PCN was not issued in the authorised time period (14 Days) and there was no Windscreen ticket issued in accordance with the conditions as per POFA.
2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who is liable for the charge.
3) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention.
4) The site boundary is not clear.
5) As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 the contract terms and notices are not fair.


1) The PCN was not issued in the authorised time period (14 Days) and there was no Windscreen ticket issued in accordance with the conditions as per POFA Paragraph 4:

The date of contravention on the PCN is XX-XX-XX. The date of notice issue is XX-XX-XX(NB +17 days). It therefore does not comply with the period of 14 days specified in Paragraph 4 (copied below). Therefore, as the keeper, I cannot be held liable for the alleged parking charge.

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
9 (4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.



2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. Only Schedule 4 of the POFA can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

"There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against Parking Eye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

“I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."



3) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention.

The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated are still photos with no attempt to describe what they contain or purport to show in support of the alleged ‘contravention’ – specifically the claim that the 'vehicle was recorded as remaining parked in this car park while the occupants were recorded walking off the site in the direction of McDonald's”.

MET Parking refer to the ‘occupants’ of the car who of course cannot be held liable for any charge arising from a contract between MET Parking and the driver of the vehicle. As already established, I am writing this appeal as the ‘registered keeper’ and the driver of the car has not been identified. Liability for this charge cannot be transferred to the keeper as the NTK was not issued within the authorised time period.

In addition, there is no evidence on the photographs, or in the provided documentation from MET that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that a driver could 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' in question 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 such as Southgate Park.



4) The site boundary is not clear.

There are no legible markings on the photographs distinguishing the boundary of Southgate Park. It is not clear which area of land the term ‘Southgate Park’ refers to.

According to Uttlesford District Council’s planning portal, the address of McDonald’s is "Mcdonalds Southgate, Thremhall Avenue, Stansted, CM24 1PY and Starbuck’s address is Starbucks Coffee, Southgate, Thremhall Avenue, Stansted, CM24 1PY.

According to Royal Mail Group, the address of McDonald's is "McDonalds Restaurants Ltd, Thremhall Avenue, London Stansted Airport, STANSTED, CM24 1PY" and Starbuck's address is "Starbucks Coffee Co (UK) Ltd, Thremhall Avenue, London Stansted Airport, STANSTED, CM24 1PY"

Any reasonable person would assume, in the absence of any clearly defined markings, maps, or boundaries, that these areas are “Southgate Park” as defined by the provided sign images. "Southgate Park" does not refer to any specifically defined business or area of land at either Uttlesford District Council or Royal Mail.

Furthermore, according to maps on the Uttlesford District Council website, there is only one entrance to both of the above sites from Southgate Road. Leaving the site, to a reasonable person, would mean to leave the vehicle within this boundary and go to a place clearly 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 car park is different to another part of the car park.

[SCREENSHOT INCLUDED FROM UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL MAPPING]

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 there is not a clear boundary between the different parts of the site (as explained in point 4), 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."


----------------------------------

Due to the aforementioned stated reasons I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Yours,

The Keeper

KeithP

Nothing there about poor signage?

There is a lengthy text in the third post of the NEWBIES thread about poor signs that perhaps you should include in your PoPLA appeal.

cation

Thank you @KeithP, the keeper will add something about inadequate signage.

I've also spotted the following:

Furthermore, according to maps on the Uttlesford District Council website, there is only one entrance to both of the above sites from Southgate Road

should probably become

Furthermore, according to maps on the Uttlesford District Council website, there is only one entrance to the entire site from Southgate Road

cation

POPLA "appeal withdrawn" by MET Parking.
The letter was sent as above with an additional paragraph about the signage so clearly not contested.

Coupon-mad

Very good!

Umkomaas

Great stuff, well done. ✅

95Rollers

This Stanstead site with 2 adjoining MET McDonald's/ Starbucks carparks was featured on Channel 4 a few years ago.  Seems like little to nothing has changed!  Well worth a watch. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RcNM4SM0

luke_t

Hi, I got ticket from this company at Standard. I've sent them what you wrote, but they didn't accept the complain. Now I've got letter from debt collection company. Any suggestions please?

B789

You should start your own thread. Appending this to someone else's thread just serves to confuse the issue and you will not get proper support.

It would appear that you nave NOT read, re-read the Newbies thread near the top of this forum. Have you even attempted to understand the steps necessary as quoted in that thread?

So, start a new thread with your case after having read, re-read and started to understand the process as outlined in the Newbies thread.

Coupon-mad

luke_t said:

Hi, I got ticket from this company at Standard. I've sent them what you wrote, but they didn't accept the complain. Now I've got letter from debt collection company. Any suggestions please?

That new DRP letter is hilarious!

I do detest the QR Code addition, that makes clueless people think it's easier to just scan and pay, though.  Uninformed, frightened folk or people with more money than sense actually will...

OF COURSE NO-ONE SHOULD PAY DEBT RECOVERY PLUS!  Laughable letters.

All covered in the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread.