Challanging parking ticket issed by Med Parking in Stansted Mcdonalds Starbucks Southgate park

Besti2015

I just wanted to say thanks to this forum I have beat MET parking at POPLA using all the info from this site. I just wanted to post my story incase anyone else has the same situation Southgate park is ''2 carparks'' but with only 1 entry /exit its such a scam!

So I parked at southgate park starbucks and walked next door to mcdonald's and received a parking charge from MET which was non POFA. I appealed though their website as the registered keeper using the blue wording on the newbies page.

I then got rejected as expected and then got a POPLA code and appealed through their website using info from the newbies popla and other peoples threads.

MET Parking Services PCN no
A notice to keeper was issued on xxxx and received by me xxxxx the registered keeper of xxx for the alleged contravention of ‘Breach of terms and conditions’’ at Southgate Park, Stansted on the 0xxxxx. 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.  A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can appl

2. Appellant not being the individual liable.

3. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
4. The site boundary is not clear
5.  Lack of standing/authority from the landowner
6. Non-Compliant Signage

 

In summary regarding CCTV. I claim it is nothing more than an underhand way to extract £60 from those who decide to pay up rather than fight it.

The car park in question has just one exit and entrance, and it is only reasonable to assume it is all the same car park. Motorists Park in similar retail units across the country every day and make their way to various shops.

I believe that the Met parking operation in Southgate car park has been designed deliberately in a way to confuse as many drivers as possible. Some signs around the car park tell customers they have one hour’s free parking, but do not specify any particular restaurant, just saying they must stay “on the site”. Others say a particular area is reserved for McDonald’s or Starbucks customers only, however, the two restaurants are about 4 meters apart, housed in what will be seen by many drivers as one overall car park.

The driver, as per the NTC and CCTV from Met Parking, walked about 30 meters to McDonald's next to Starbucks. he ate there, spent around 30 minutes, and left well within the free hour. This practice was applied in other retail parks too, requiring you to park in front of each shop you visit and move your car when switching shops. It seems impractical. What if a customer went to one restaurant but decided to eat in another? Would they have to move their car? In this case, the driver visited both McDonald's and a short visit Starbucks, but Met Parking didn't show CCTV of them entering Starbucks. So, I'm asking Met Parking to provide footage of the driver from entering the car park to leaving.

I have called both McDonald’s and Starbucks, and they told me that they thought the signage was unclear, and that they were aware of this happening a lot. I was told that there was nothing they could do about it.

 Ironically, because MET Parking sent me the demand a month after the visit, it is probably unenforceable.

The failure to deliver the “notice to keeper” within 14 days breaches the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Taking all the above into account, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge be dismissed.

 

 

Fruitcake

Well done, especially for doing all this without the need to start a thread, and thanks for letting us know.

It is not true that neither enterprise can do anything about this recurring problem that is driving repeat custom away. If they do not own the land, which is probably the case, they can complain to the landowner about the deliberately misleading signage and insist that it be changed such that it does not penalise genuine customers.

Send the complain the CEOs of both companies.

patient_dream

Well done ....... now POPLA know about this mega scam site by MET parking.
The big question is .... when will the BPA wake up ? or do they like and approve such scams.

Could you post the POPLA reply on here please, it will help others

Besti2015

Thank you for your reply,

After I emailed Med Parking to dispute the alleged PCN and express my rejection of payment, they responded with the following:

We believe the charge was issued correctly and that they  are upholding it. If they had wanted to park in this car park and leave the premises, they could have done so by paying the appropriate parking tariff.

We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions. For your ease of reference, we attach a copy of the entrance sign and terms and conditions sign displayed at this location along with a photograph of your vehicle parked in close vicinity to a number of these signs. All images held in relation to the charge may be seen and enlarged at www.paymetparking.com.

The fact that our clients display our signs on their premises demonstrates that there is landowner authority, however, if the matter should proceed to court for collection and the court require a copy of formal landowner consent one will be provided to the court at that time.

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 at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.

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: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: xxxxxx 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 £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) 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.

Following my appeal to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) with POPLA, the subsequent decision and responses are detailed below:

Dear xxxxx,

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

Debszzzz2

Well done. However, all you had to tell MET was you were appealing as the keeper and you are not liable for the charge as the location is subject to statutory controls and is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA. As they cannot rely on PoFA, only the driver is liable for any alleged brach of terms and you are under no legal obligation to reveal the identity of the driver and will not be doing so. Either cancel the PCN or waste your money on a POPLA code where this will be cancelled.

patient_dream

Besti2015 said:

Dear xxxxx,

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

So, despite MET saying they were correct ....  why would they withdraw at POPLA ??

By withdrawing they admit they are wrong. No different to DCBL and their discontinuation farce ... and DCBL did discontinue for the same site

It is worth as Fruitcake suggests, explaining to the CEO's of Starbucks and Mcdonalds what has happened and ask just how many of their customers face this scam on a daily basis and PAY UP
One entrance .... one car park split into two with CCTV following people ??

We are led to beleive that the BPA MONITOR THEIR MEMBER SITES .... clearly not unless of course they approve scam sites ??
A QUESTION TO THE BPA ..... and a question to government as to why they approve an ATA likHG e the BPA 

This is the BPA CEO ..... believe it or not ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaKMkO3YVM&t=521s

Ask what he thinks about the scam

akapt

Hiya, i would like to know what to do when a letter has been sent a year after the charge, so no option to appeal (after i received the first one, i sent via registered mail an appeal letter with all documents, which no one responded to). The phone number on the letter is not responding. 

Le_Kirk

Have you read the NEWBIE sticky; that should be your first port of call rather than posting on someone else's old thread. When you have read the FAQ, please start your own dedicated thread. 

Coupon-mad

akapt said:

Hiya, i would like to know what to do when a letter has been sent a year after the charge, so no option to appeal (after i received the first one, i sent via registered mail an appeal letter with all documents, which no one responded to). The phone number on the letter is not responding. 

Please start a thread and tell us there (not here) which PPC this is about.

sir_bernardo

I've unfortunately been in the same situation with a different outcome. I also parked at Starbucks when it was closed and went to McDonalds for 26 minutes as the MacDonalds car park was full.

Got charged a PCN.

Appealed without thinking saying I was a customer and attached a McDonalds receipt.

Got rejected as what I found out then that it is 2 car parks here and I couldn't be a Starbucks customer because Starbucks was closed.

Found this forum and Appealed to POPLA using the standard points. Unfortunately a few of the above mentioned points don't apply anymore:
- They now serve a compliant Notice to Keeper and they served it in time (within 3 days).
- I already admitted to be the person liable through my first appeal saying I was a customer and including the McDonalds receipt
- CCTV evidence was time stamped and was taken on the Starbucks entry and exit so hard to contest

All the other points I appealed but it got rejected by POPLA:
- site boundaries were considered clear although I contested that this is absolutely not the case
- signage for both entry/boundary as parking conditions considered BPA compliant, including clear illumination although I stated that the car park was dark after closing hours (I was there at 1am). The latter got conveniently ignored
- land ownership issue rejected as a contract was shown. Although I contested that the contract only showed a small section and not validity and parties, this got ignored

I then decided to contact Starbucks. They were very nice but referred to the real owner as it's a franchise. This is the EURO GARAGES Group. Contacted them and they basically restated the parking terms and conditions. I replied arguing that this is not my point but that I want to raise a concern in the general public interest:

We've all been there. You think you're doing nothing wrong parking your car somewhere and then this annoying PCN comes in and you can't hide the feeling that you've been unfairly treated. In my particular situation, I know that there must be many people with me. On that night alone, at that specific time there were at least 30 other cars parked in the car park, meaning there must be 1000s of pounds of profit made every night on that parking site. A quick search on the internet shows that this particular site has had this issue going on for years now.

When one gets through the PCN appeal process, it quickly becomes a legal issue and there is no chance of winning as the company simply complies with putting up every possible sign required. Yet, many people still get PCNs so something must be wrong.

Although I sympathise with the fact that MET services is managing the car park for EG group, the land is owned by EG group and EG group has the contract with MET, outsourcing the parking management, meaning it is in your interest that the service is executed properly and fairly by MET and is not damaging your or the Starbucks brand.

That's why I'm appealing to you to review the terms of the contract with MET to avoid current practices of issuing PCN to unsuspecting customers. I personally think that increasing the number of signs is not the answer here, hence my suggestion to revisit the parking terms after closing hours to also allow for 60 minutes free parking after closing time, combining the car park with McDonalds or closing off the car park at night after closing hours. The least (although I think this would not solve the issue) that could be done would be to keep the car park well lit at night (all lights were off when I was there) so signs can be seen clearly after closing hours. 

Guess what? It all went quiet after that...

I'm now considering whether I should just give up and pay up or let it come to a court case if need be, banking on the chance that it will never get to that. My fear with a court case is that it'll all be silly legal arguments and no common sense. Anyone who's been in this situation knows that something is terribly wrong here...

Any suggestions from anyone?  

Coupon-mad

Obviously you don't pay after losing at POPLA.  MET hardly ever sue but if they do, you'd win. No CCJ risk, but this isn't new and is already explained in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Everyone defends a parking court claim.

Everyone ignores the £170 debt demands.

You've seen the Joe Lycett video about it?