MET NTK RECEIVED FROM THE EVER SO POPULAR SOUTHGATE PARK, STANSTED

baldy10

Drove into this car park, as I have for many years to stop for quick bite at McDonalds, stayed 18 minutes, assumed parking was free for 1 hour for McDonalds customers. Received NTK week later.

Appealed for the following reasons:

I would like to explain the circumstances and request that this charge be cancelled on the basis that no breach of terms and conditions occurred. On the date in question, I entered the site to refuel at the BP petrol station located within the car park. Following this, I proceeded to McDonald's, also within the same complex, for a quick meal. The entire visit was well within the 1-hour free parking limit that applies at the location. It is important to note that Southgate Park has only one entrance and one exit, meaning that any activity within the petrol station and adjacent businesses (such as McDonald's) is recorded under a single continuous stay. This does not accurately reflect the legitimate and permitted use of multiple services within the site during the allowable time frame. I kindly request that you review the ANPR data in light of this explanation, as the recorded 18-minute duration clearly falls within the permitted free parking period. There was no intention to breach any terms, and the site was used appropriately. I trust this clarifies the situation and respectfully request that the charge be cancelled.

Response from MET:

The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These include that this is a pay by phone car park, and that there is a free period of 60 minutes for customers of Southgate Park (Starbucks only), however there is a requirement to register your vehicle registration on site to qualify for this free customer stay. Other users of the car park must pay the appropriate tariff. Your vehicle was observed parked in breach of these terms therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it.

We note your comments however the car park you parked in is not McDonald’s car park, their car park is adjacent to their restaurant. This is a pay by phone car park.

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.

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.

POPLA code given to which I replied:

I went to McDonalds and parked in an available space on the side of Starbucks, which was closed. The sign I saw said 60 minutes free parking for customers only, which I assumed was for the whole complex. The car park is not clearly signposted and fine is 'ridiculous'. Dozens have complained about the cunning tactics used by this parking company. 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. I walked about 20 meters to McDonald's next to Starbucks. ate there, spent around 20 minutes, and left well within the free hour. If 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? I have since called McDonald’s, 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. Taking all the above into account, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge be dismissed.

Response from MET via POPLA:

In the appeal to POPLA Mr Sandha states that he was a customer of McDonald’s at the time, which he believed to be part of Southgate Park. In this instance, the driver was not entitled to the free parking period as they were not a customer and had not registered their vehicle. As advised on the signs, only customers are entitled to the free parking period, and they must register their vehicle on arrival. The driver did not make payment for their stay as an alternative and as such the parking charge was issued. This would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as only Starbucks customers are permitted to park for free, which the driver was not – they were a customer of McDonald’s. As such, they were not entitled to the further reduction when the appeal was declined. We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. As demonstrated by the photographic evidence in Section E of our evidence pack Southgate Park has entrance signs either side of the vehicle entrance to the park, therefore there is clear demarcation. Section E also contains copies of the signs, a site map showing their location, and photographs of the signs in situ. The signage specifically states that McDonald’s is not part of Southgate Park. For the avoidance of doubt, we have included an overview of the location with McDonald’s and the access road outlined. We would also point out that the signs in the McDonald’s car park are red and clearly state that the car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers while they are on those premises only. They are entirely different to the blue and white signs shown in Section E of our evidence pack. Ultimately, it remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that the car park is for the use of Southgate Park customers only and that to receive the 60-minute maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors may extend their stay up to 3 hours by using the pay by phone service. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without being registered for the free parking period and no payment was made as an alternative. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused.

I NOW NEED TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY MET, PLEASE HELP AS I DON'T THINK THIS FINE SHOULD BE PAID.

Gr1pr

Seems to me that you gave away the best point, no keeper liability on airport land, by telling them both that you were the driver,  whereas POFA would have protected you as a keeper 

Joe Lycett highlighted that location and the mistakes etc a few years ago 

You now need to go through their evidence pack and find any winning points in your favour and draft your popla comments rebuttal 

You should study the recent cases in the Popla Decisions sticky thread in announcements,  looking for similar examples to use

baldy10

Yes big mistake, should have read the forum earlier. The evidence pack is 39 pages long.

baldy10

MET evidence:

Location

South Gate Park

A120

Stansted Airport

CM24 1AA

Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site – these terms can be seen on the photograph of the sign attached in Section E

•

Pay by phone car park. 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers while they remain on the premises only. Enter your vehicle registration number on arrival. Tariffs apply thereafter. No free stay for visitors to premises not located in Southgate Park. Please Note McDonald’s is not in Southgate Park. See tariff signs for details

•

No return to site within 60 minutes of vehicles departing

•

Maximum free stay is 60 minutes. You may extend your stay up to a total of 3 hours by using the pay by phone service. If you wish to park here while you visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, you must pay from when your vehicle enters the car park

•

Vehicles must park within marked bays and not park in such a way as to cause obstruction to others

•

Vehicles parked, stopped, or waiting in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times

•

Vehicles must not park on yellow or white lines or in hatched areas

Case Summary

The charge notice was issued as the vehicle remained in the car park without having been registered for the free parking period and no payment had been made as an alternative. Motorists are not permitted to remain on site without either registration or payment.

This is a pay by phone car park managed using ANPR CCTV cameras and parking attendants. In order to attract customers to the premises situated within Southgate Park our client offers a free stay period to those customers while they remain on site using the tenant’s premises.

The car park is situated very close to the Stansted airport perimeter road and next to a McDonald’s restaurant, the car park suffers from abuse from motorists using it to park whilst they go next door to the McDonald’s restaurant who then do not pay to park.

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the site. There are 11 terms and

conditions signs located at this site representing 1 sign to approximately every 5 parking spaces. The terms & conditions signs measure 450x650mm. All the signs are made using a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA1. This is the European Harmonised Standard that has been set for Road Traffic Signs. In addition to their reflective nature the signs are illuminated by lampposts they are attached to or adjacent to, ambient light and light from the vehicles themselves entering and parking on the site.

On 17/04/2025 vehicle BC15NVT was recorded as remaining on site without having registered their vehicle registration in the store on arrival. There was also no payment made to extend the stay.

Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA and a notice to keeper sent.

On 04/05/2025 we received an appeal from the driver, Mr Rashpal Sandha. On completing their investigation, the appeals team sent a letter to the appellant explaining that the appeal had been refused and why.

In the appeal to POPLA Mr Sandha states that he was a customer of McDonald’s at the time, which he believed to be part of Southgate Park.

In this instance, the driver was not entitled to the free parking period as they were not a customer and had not registered their vehicle. As advised on the signs, only customers are entitled to the free parking period, and they must register their vehicle on arrival. The driver did not make payment for their stay as an alternative and as such the parking charge was issued.

This would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as only Starbucks customers are permitted to park for free, which the driver was not – they were a customer of McDonald’s. As such, they were not entitled to the further reduction when the appeal was declined.

We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. As demonstrated by the photographic evidence in Section E of our evidence pack Southgate Park has entrance signs either side of the vehicle entrance to the park, therefore there is clear demarcation. Section E also contains copies of the signs, a site map showing their location, and photographs of the signs in situ. The signage specifically states that McDonald’s is not part of Southgate Park. For the avoidance of doubt, we have included an overview of the location with McDonald’s and the access road outlined.

We would also point out that the signs in the McDonald’s car park are red and clearly state that the car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers while they are on those

premises only. They are entirely different to the blue and white signs shown in Section E of our evidence pack.

Ultimately, it remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations.

The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that the car park is for the use of Southgate Park customers only and that to receive the 60-minute maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors may extend their stay up to 3 hours by using the pay by phone service. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without being registered for the free parking period and no payment was made as an alternative. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused.

baldy10

Continued from above:

Landowner Authority

MET Parking Services Ltd are contracted by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited to ensure adherence to the terms and conditions of the car park. Our interest in the land arises from our obligation to perform our contractual duties by ensuring provision can be made for motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client’s premises.

The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered this point and held that ParkingEye had contracted with the motorist as a principal and not as agent and the contract had been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the motorist parking his car on the site.

We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted contract between ourselves and our client as it contains information which is commercially sensitive and not relevant in this instance.

We note POPLA are often asked to consider whether the contract existed at the date of the contravention and as you can see from the extract from the contract held with Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited this agreement has a commencement date of 1 November 2013 as this was the date it was signed by the client and is agreed for an initial period of 24 months after which point it becomes an ongoing agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We can confirm that neither Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited nor MET Parking have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that the contract provided adequately proves that MET Parking had sufficient authority to issue parking charges on the land, on the day of the contravention. This is also evidenced by the fact that Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited permitted MET Parking’s parking enforcement signs to be prominently displayed on the site at that time and to this date.

Coupon-mad

You've probably lost the POPLA appeal by not coming here first, because you admitted to driving.

But do some comments about the well known lack of any clear delineation between the car parks and there's no evidence that you did park in the wrong section.

Post the POPLA Decision in the thread of that name at the top of the forum later this month. Obviously, if it is lost at POPLA that's something and nothing; just ignore MET and DCB Ltd and defend a court claim later on.