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

baldy10

My original comments sent:

COMMENTS TO OPERATORS EVIDENCE

Ref: *********

Appellant: Mr ***********

Parking Charge Notice: *************

Operator: MET Parking Services

Location: Southgate Park, Stansted Airport

1. Insufficient Evidence of Alleged Contravention

MET Parking Services has failed to provide adequate evidence to support the allegation that the vehicle “left the site.” The only evidence offered are static photographs, which do not prove that the occupants left any defined boundary of the site. The signage does not show or define what constitutes the site. There are no maps or clear markings informing drivers where the site ends. A sign merely stating “do not leave the site” is meaningless without such definition. The car park includes multiple businesses (e.g. McDonald’s, Starbucks) that share the same address, making it impossible for any reasonable person to distinguish between “on site” and “off site.” Further, if surveillance photos have been taken without appropriate justification or signage, this raises concerns under GDPR and the Data Protection Act. POPLA may wish to refer this issue to the Information Commissioner’s Office and the BPA.

2. Site Boundary Not Clearly Defined

The PCN states the occupants left the premises, but no signage defines the boundary of “Southgate Park.” There is no: - Site map showing boundary limits - Visual indicator or marking for where the site begins and ends - Clear warning that leaving an undefined area would breach terms and conditions Given the shared addresses of all businesses on-site, and only one vehicular entrance, the layout makes it unreasonable to expect a driver to know they’ve crossed a boundary. Without any visible distinction, it is misleading and unfair to penalise drivers for moving between businesses.

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

Under Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, the operator must have written authority from the landowner. I request an unredacted copy of the landowner contract, showing:

- Exact land boundaries MET are authorised to manage - Enforcement hours and any site-specific exemptions - The full terms including any grace periods - Who maintains signage - Who signed the contract and whether they were authorised to do so Witness statements are not sufficient. MET is put to strict proof of full compliance with BPA CoP 7.2 and 7.3.

4. Inadequate and Unclear Signage

The signage at Southgate Park fails to meet the standards set by the BPA Code of Practice or the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, which require that the parking charge be clearly and prominently displayed. Key issues: - Signs are small, cluttered, and hard to read - £100 charge is in small print and not displayed at the entrance - No clear notice that different areas have separate terms - Inconsistent signage with varying wording within short distances - No clear indication that crossing from McDonald’s to another part of the park breaches terms In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld a charge only because signage was “large, prominent, and clear.” That is not the case here. This situation is more akin to Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, where it was found there could be no contract without clear signage visible prior to parking.

5. Reputational Evidence & Media Coverage

This location has been widely condemned in national media as “Britain’s most ridiculous car park,” with headlines from: - The Mirror - The Daily Mail - Essex Live - The Guardian These reports highlight long-standing and widespread confusion caused by MET Parking’s signage and boundary definitions at this exact site. This supports the argument that enforcement is unclear, unreasonable, and based on a flawed and misleading layout.

Conclusion

Given: - The vague and undefined site boundary - The lack of sufficient signage - The absence of proof of landowner authority

- The intrusive and unclear photographic evidence - The extensive media criticism of this location …I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

pustit

When these abominations are received by the appellant why don't they simply return it explaining it is virtually impossible to read or understand and ask POPLA to set it out like a normal letter with appropriate spacing, paragraphs etc.
This is typical of the parking "industry" - curmudgeonly making the whole process difficult for motorists.
Kaizen and his "continuous improvements" might pick up on this, helpful fellow that he is.
Perhaps in the Newbies guide C-M could include this advice. 

doubledotcom

You left out the single winning point that there is no Keeper liability if the driver is not identified because the location is within the byelaws boundary of Stansted Airport.

baldy10

Received Debt Recovery letter today. To put it simply they have said pay now or charge will increase to £280 if I lose in court.

Do I continue ignoring these letters? Any advise would be much appreciated.

baldy10

doubledotcom said:

You left out the single winning point that there is no Keeper liability if the driver is not identified because the location is within the byelaws boundary of Stansted Airport.

yes I know, silly mistake I made before I joined this forum. I already admitted I was the driver.

Coupon-mad

baldy10 said:

Received Debt Recovery letter today. To put it simply they have said pay now or charge will increase to £280 if I lose in court.

Do I continue ignoring these letters? Any advise would be much appreciated.

Of course.

Please don't tell us about £170 threatograms. Come back when the claim arrives.