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 ***** 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 *******. 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 ***** 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.

baldy10

My request for asking for more time to submit my comments to their 39 page document:

Dear ******

I would like to raise a concern regarding the handling of the operator's evidence in this matter.

The evidence was received on 27th May, and the accompanying correspondence stated that I had seven days in which to provide comments. Given the volume and complexity of the material, I submitted a request for an extension on 30th May — just three days after receipt. However, I have only received a response to that request today, a full four days later.

In light of this, I do not believe I have been afforded a fair opportunity to respond appropriately to the operator's evidence. The delay in response has effectively denied me the time necessary to make considered and meaningful comments.

I respectfully request that this be taken into account, and that I be granted a reasonable extension to ensure a fair and balanced process.

baldy10

Popla response to my request:

The amount of time we give for appellants to provide comments is 7 days, and we would only accept and extension if there was a medical issue for example or you had issues opening the files. You can still provide the comments, but it will be up to assessor if they are used in your appeal.

baldy10

My reply to Popla:

I appreciate the clarification regarding the 7-day timeframe for submitting comments. However, I would like to note that a significant portion of this period was taken up by the exchange of emails and awaiting clarification, which unfortunately contributed to the delay in adding my comments to the operator’s evidence.

I do understand that the acceptance of any late comments is at the assessor’s discretion, but I hope this context will be taken into consideration.

baldy10

Popla reply:

This information has now been added to your appeal.

We must advise that as the timeframe to provide comments has passed, we are not required to consider these when making a decision on your appeal.

Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on your appeal within the next 6-8 weeks. The next communication that you will receive from us will be the decision on your appeal.

baldy10

Popla Decision:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Kayleigh Miller

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being longer than the period of parking paid for.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • The car park has one entrance and one exit. They went to McDonalds and parked in an available space on the side of Starbucks, which was closed. • They assumed that the 60 minutes free parking for customers applied for both Starbucks and McDonalds. They were only on site for 20 minutes. • Some signs around the car park tell customers they have one hour’s free parking, but do not specify any particular restaurant. Others say a particular area is reserved for McDonalds or Starbucks customers only. • They believe that the operator in Southgate car park has been designed deliberately in a way to confuse as many drivers as possible. • They have since called McDonalds, and they told them that they thought the signage was unclear. The appellant has provided: 1. A photo of the PCN detials. 2. A photo of Starbuck and McDonalds showing the distance between them. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who park in Southgate Park and use the McDonalds without making payment for parking. The operator has provided a system search to demonstrate that BC15 NVT did not make a payment for parking. While they state that there is only 1 exit and entrance to the area, in the operator’s case summary it has provided a site map that shows there is a car park for Starbucks and a separate car park for McDonalds. I have no reason to dispute that they parked at Starbucks and went to the McDonalds, which is a short distance away, as shown in their evidence photo. While they believed the 60 minutes free parking was for both Starbucks and McDonalds, in the entrance signs they confirm that the 60 free minutes is for customer on Southgate Park or at Starbucks and confirmed there was further details to see in the terms and conditions signs. In the terms and conditions signs they confirm that McDonalds is not on Southgate Park. The terms also state that when parking in Southgate Park, if you intend to visit the McDonalds that there is a fee to pay for parking at the Starbucks. While they were only in the car park for 18 minutes, as they were visiting the McDonalds, they were not entitled to a 60-minute free stay at the Southgate car park. It is the driver’s responsibility to become aware of the terms and conditions and the consequences for breaching those terms. I empathise that they feel the design of the car park is intentional so to confuse drivers. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments about their conversation with the McDonalds however, the contract formed when parking is between the motorist and the operator. Any third-party conversation would have no bearing on the contract formed, and no impact on the motorist’s ability to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist did not pay for parking therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.