PARKINF FINE STANTED AIRPORT MCDONALDS

Coupon-mad

You won't get any problems that could in any way affect your mortgage, as long as you follow our advice in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread, acknowledge the claim then email the Template Defence, suitably altered a tad in paragraph 3 (just read half a dozen MET Southgate claim threads.  No link.  Go look for them, or search).

You are not risking a CCJ by defending a small claim as long as you don't ignore it or court letters.

Gmlmonika

Thank you for getting back to me, I am reading forums and comments and it gets so overwhelming and sometimes even more confusing

Coupon-mad

Gmlmonika said:

Thank you for getting back to me, I am reading forums and comments and it gets so overwhelming and sometimes even more confusing

Which is why I've given you some simple search words to find what you can copy from. Very easy. Copy and paste stuff.

Redacted claim form:

1505grandad

You have left your VRM in the PoC.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th January, you had until 4pm on Monday 17th February - that's today - to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'). Did you do that? If not, I suggest you do that right now - before the Claimant seeks and gets a Default Judgment against you. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 3rd March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

LDast

You can use these comprehensive arguments for your defence "hooks" and later fish the out in your WS should this ever get as far as a hearing (it shouldn't). It is useful for arguing against METs insistence that the location is not under statutory control. This also applies to their car park at McDonalds at Gatwick Airport:

1. The location is not relevant land under PoFA

The appellant has provided an official airport boundary map from Stansted Airport, which clearly shows that Southgate Park is within the official airport boundary. This map was submitted with the appeal as direct evidence of the statutory control over the land.

MET has completely ignored this map and has not rebutted the obvious evidence that the location falls within the airport boundary. Instead, they attempt to dismiss the argument by making vague assertions about whether the byelaws apply to parking but fail to provide any evidence contradicting the airport's official boundary.

MET has provided a link to the airport byelaws, but this link does not contain any map of the airport boundary. In contrast, the official map submitted by the appellant confirms that the car park is within the airport's jurisdiction. The fact that MET has ignored this map and provided no counter-evidence is a clear failure to rebut a key piece of evidence in this appeal.

Since PoFA does not apply to land that is under statutory control, MET has no legal basis to hold the keeper liable. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed.

2. The location is under statutory control

MET Parking Services has failed to properly respond to the core argument that Southgate Park is under statutory control. The appeal clearly stated that PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 3(1)(c) excludes land if the parking of a vehicle on that land is subject to statutory control, such as land covered by airport byelaws. The Stansted Airport byelaws contain a provision that regulates where vehicles may be parked within the airport boundary. Since the byelaws impose statutory control over parking, this means the location is not relevant land under PoFA.

The airport byelaws do contain a provision stating:

“No person shall leave any cargo or baggage or park any vehicle or equipment elsewhere than in a place provided by the airport company for the accommodation of such cargo or baggage or the parking of such vehicle or equipment.”

This confirms that the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control because it dictates where vehicles may and may not be parked. The fact that the byelaws regulate where vehicles can be parked means that parking is subject to statutory control, satisfying the exclusion in PoFA

MET Parking Services has failed to acknowledge or rebut the official airport boundary map provided in this appeal, which confirms that Southgate Park is within the airport boundary and thus subject to these byelaws. They have also failed to explain why they believe that parking at this location is not subject to statutory control, despite the clear wording of the byelaws.

The byelaws provided in MET’s evidence pack confirm that they apply to any land within the boundary of Stansted Airport, meaning it is subject to statutory control.

MET Parking Services’ argument that byelaws only apply to areas where road traffic enactments do not apply is incorrect and misleading. The wording of PoFA does not require byelaws to specifically mention parking. It simply states that land under statutory control is not ‘relevant land.’ Byelaws exist over Stansted Airport, which means PoFA does not apply, and MET cannot transfer liability to the Keeper.

MET has failed to provide any legal argument or evidence to counter this point. Their response simply states that they are “confident” that byelaws do not apply to parking in this location. Confidence is not evidence. Their failure to address the specific wording of PoFA means that they have not rebutted the fundamental legal argument that this land is not ‘relevant land.’

Since PoFA does not apply, MET has no legal basis to hold the Keeper liable. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed.

3. MET Parking Services has failed to address the core legal argument

The appeal highlighted that MET’s rejection of the initial appeal ignored the argument about statutory control. In their response to POPLA, MET again fails to provide any legal argument refuting this point. Instead, they attempt to deflect the issue by claiming that PoFA applies because the byelaws do not explicitly mention parking.

MET’s failure to address this key issue is a clear indication that they do not have a legal basis to enforce the parking charge. They have not cited any law, case law, or legal precedent to contradict the appellant’s argument. Their silence on this issue speaks volumes.

4. No Keeper liability under PoFA

MET states that they are pursuing the registered Keeper under PoFA because the driver has not been identified. However, this argument is entirely dependent on PoFA being applicable, which it is not. Since Southgate Park is subject to byelaws and therefore statutory control, PoFA does not apply, and MET cannot hold the Keeper liable.

MET has completely failed to explain how PoFA can apply when the location is not ‘relevant land.’ They have not addressed the clear wording of PoFA that excludes land under statutory control. Instead, they rely on a misleading and legally incorrect interpretation.

5. Misleading reliance on BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice

MET attempts to rely on Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which suggests that if a Keeper does not identify the driver, they can be assumed to be the driver. This is legally incorrect and has no basis in law.

The appeal referenced the persuasive appeals case of VCS v Edward (2023), which confirms that the Keeper cannot simply be inferred or assumed to be the driver. MET has completely ignored this case and has not attempted to rebut it. Instead, they rely on a non-statutory industry code that contradicts established legal principles. POPLA must follow the law, not a misleading interpretation from a trade body.

Gmlmonika

thank you although im finding it hard to navigate these forums! One leads to another and another and im lost again...  may I ask if this is what I am meant to be sending right now ( with my infi added later) ? I have never contacted them before  

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. (will be entered) 
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: (will be eneterd)Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
( will be added here )

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

KeithP

I think you are concentrating on the wrong thing.
You already have court proceedings so to ask for a delay at this time is not appropriate.

Please re-read the opening words of my earlier post where I wrote...

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th January, you had until 4pm on Monday 17th February - that's today - to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'). Did you do that? If not, I suggest you do that right now - before the Claimant seeks and gets a Default Judgment against you. 

Gmlmonika

Im trying to understand and im still confused, in tears now from reading all different things I feel like paying and forgetting about this,  what dropbox I dont see any dropbox in forums? what is AOS to begin with? Is that to be filled on popla website because I cant since they are asking for verification number from rejected appeal? English is not my first language, nor do I understand the system here and every forum states a bit different things. so much helpful information and I feel like I just dont know how to use it

KeithP

Firstly, why won't you answer my question?
I asked "...you had until 4pm on Monday 17th February - that's today - to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'). Did you do that?"

Secondly, That sentence I have just posted again tells you exactly what AOS is.
I'll spell it out...  AOS = Acknowledgment of Service.

Thirdly, I mentioned "the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread".
There is only one Dropbox file mentioned in the second post in the NEWBIES thread.