MET Parking Stansted Starbucks

DrAculaGonzo

Guys, unfortunately I'm back. I just got NTK for apparently overstaying in Stansted. From some reading I understand that this should be easy and will be discontinued once I lodge a defence?

Anyway, just want to confirm that I have done the right thing by appealing online as a registered keeper with standard template? Is my next step the defence, i.e. ignore everything which will happen between now and claim form?

Is there a point to do a POPLA 2nd stage appeal? 

Thanks

Umkomaas

You're nowhere near having to defend this (in the sense of a court claim), but POPLA should be the next stage of the process. I'd appeal there once you've received the rejection of your initial appeal along with your POPLA verification code. NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, third post, will guide you through developing your POPLA appeal. 

DrAculaGonzo

Thanks, quick one. My NTK has been issued on time (i.e. within 14 days of "offence"). Does this significantly reduce my chances of winning at POPLA. I'm intending to use the template from this link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6431256/successful-popla-appeal-against-met-parking-stansted-mcdonalds-and-starbucks/p1, but omit the NTK out of time point. Is this the right path to follow?

Thanks for any advice in advance.

Coupon-mad

It's nothing to do with fixating on the date.   Please compare your NTK with the MET ones in the NTK pictures thread that I started recently.

Whatever2023

Or you could just pay your dues if you did in fact overstay.

Coupon-mad

Whatever2023 said:

Or you could just pay your dues if you did in fact overstay.

Nothing is due though.  The keeper isn't liable.

Whatever2023

The driver is liable, who should pay or appeal. 

Hard to take a moral high ground when encouraging the exploitation of loopholes. 

Coupon-mad

The POFA - and the fact the lawmakers carefully kept airports and other byelaws land outside of schedule 4 - isn't a loophole.

What is hard, is for the parking industry to take the moral high ground when they set out to encourage consumer error then exploit that.

Most are running a scheme that bears all the hallmarks of a protection racket.  Instead of doing an honest job of parking management (e.g. overseeing accessible bays, keeping traffic flowing, marshalling) and being paid for it by the landowners.

The model used "we'll look after your car park free, guv" is considered a thug clamper mentality.

DrAculaGonzo

Coupon-mad said:

It's nothing to do with fixating on the date.   Please compare your NTK with the MET ones in the NTK pictures thread that I started recently.

Right, mine is virtually the same, back page is in a slightly different order but it's a carbon copy otherwise. So what does this mean? Can I adapt the template and just remove the NTK out of time point since they were in time? Or are you saying that the document does not meet the criterial of NTK? Sorry, being very thick again...

DrAculaGonzo

ok, having read a bit more into it I now understand that lack of any mention of POFA and transfer of liability after 28 days on NTK invalidates such NTK under POFA. Can you just confirm I am getting this right please?

Whatever2023

A Notice to Keeper can be POFA compliant without referring to it, although it may not be for other reasons.