Southgate park, Stanstead

Freddiefoxtrot

Hello, I received an Ntk from Met because like so many others, my car entered the Starbucks part of the car park and the driver left to visit McDonald's. My appeal to Met was rejected, and I was issued with a number to appeal to Popla and I am looking for some help with how to proceed please? I've been looking at other posts but I'm feeling a little overwhelmed! Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

Just use the usual points in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread or copy another MET Starbucks POPLA appeal already written.  Once you start it you'll be fine.  Then show us!

Freddiefoxtrot

Hi Coupon-mad, I've cobbled this together from a few sources, do you think this is acceptable to post to popla? The 'offence' took place around midnight.
Many thanks. 

Dear Sir/ Madam

Ticket no. xxxx

Registration no. xxxx

I was issued with a parking ticket on 2nd April for an alleged parking contravention on 26th March, but I believe it was unfairly issued. I declined the company's invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:

Appellant not being the individual liable. 

The sight boundary is not clear. 

Non compliant signage. 

The signage on site was inadequate and not lit at night,

-The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible at night from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

- Signs are displayed at height, with a substantial amount of text written in inadequately small font which makes it difficult or impossible to read and understand from a vehicle outside of daylight hours.

-Further inspection revealed that only a small number of terms and conditions signage are displayed. This signage is located at an excessive height above where customers would normally park.

-The terms and conditions displayed do not state the parking charges let alone the sum payable for unauthorised parking. The BPS COP states:

“18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

“In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.”

In summary, this case by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' consistently and clearly displayed throughout the car park that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and agreement on the charge existed.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

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 most drivers as one overall car park.

I have called McDonald’s and Starbucks and they told me they thought the signage was unclear. 

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

Gr1pr

Check the spelling for mistakes etc, like site, not sight, etc

Number the opening bullet points and also number each paragraph that is about that particular bullet point 

Freddiefoxtrot

Cool, thank you 😊 

Coupon-mad

You don't seem to have the usual points.  That is just the signage point.

1505grandad

Also make sure you are using/quoting BPA CoP version 9 dated February 2024

Freddiefoxtrot

This is what they sent me, and why I'm focusing on the signage. What other points do you recommend? 

Coupon-mad

As I said, the usual ones explained in the NEWBIES thread post 3 and/or copy another MET Starbucks POPLA appeal already written.  None of those that come up when you search only use a signage point.

Freddiefoxtrot

I'm sorry to keep bothering you with this but I'm struggling to navigate the forum. My appeal above was adapted from a post from Besti2015 regarding his successful popla appeal, as it's the only one I could find from Southgate park, Stansted. Do you think I'll be successful with this? I'm not tech savvy and tbh I'm starting to lose the will to live! Any help is gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

Right.  We want you to learn how easy it is.

Put these words in the search box:

popla MET stansted appeal

Change results order to NEWEST (not best match).  I just did it and I got 189 results with the most recent shown first, all far better than that old one.