Southgate Park Stansted initial appeal to MET

Hangthemorons · 21 July at 1:52PM

So, have got the notice to keeper for the Southgate Park, Starbucks/Mcdonalds site. This is my first appeal and have drafted my appeal to MET as below, is there anything that is obvioulsy missing or needs adding. Thanks

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXX and am in receipt of your Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXX, issued in relation to a 12-minute stay at Southgate Park, Stansted on XX/07/2025. I am submitting this appeal in my capacity as the keeper and do not identify the driver, nor am I obliged to do so.

I formally appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. No Opportunity to Comply – Starbucks Was Closed The driver entered the car park with the genuine intention of using Starbucks, the business associated with this specific parking area. However, upon arrival, Starbucks was closed, rendering the in-store terminal (iPad) used for vehicle registration inaccessible. This made it impossible to comply with any requirement to register the vehicle for the advertised one-hour free parking. Crucially, while a pay-by-phone option may have existed, the lack of clear, prominent signage specifically explaining this alternative, especially given the intended method (in-store iPad) was unavailable due to the store's closure, meant the driver had no immediate and obvious means to understand or comply with any terms of parking. Based on signage found online it appears there is a one-hour free parking available. As a result, no breach of terms occurred; the driver could not register or pay due to circumstances entirely beyond their control and a critical lack of clear instruction.

2. Misleading and Ambiguous Signage The signage at Southgate Park is insufficient and misleading, particularly for first-time visitors. The car park appears to serve a shared retail site (Starbucks and McDonald's), with a single entrance/exit and no clear division between potential parking zones. This lack of clear demarcation and guidance, including the failure to adequately present alternative registration methods when the primary in-store option was unavailable, violates the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (specifically, requirements for clear, prominent, and unambiguous signage at entry and within the site, e.g., Section 18.1). The signage failed to adequately inform a reasonable motorist of the specific terms and conditions or what action was required given the store's closure.

3. No Valid Contract Could Be Formed A binding contract requires clear offer, acceptance, and an ability to understand and comply with terms. At the time in question:

Starbucks was closed.
The registration iPad was inaccessible.
Despite the possibility of a phone payment option, the signage did not clearly explain this method as a viable alternative, nor did it explain what a visitor should do if the primary store (Starbucks) was closed or how to register their vehicle under such circumstances. Therefore, no valid contract could be formed between the driver and MET Parking Services, and consequently, no breach occurred.

4. No Keeper Liability – POFA 2012 Not Satisfied As the keeper, I am not liable unless the strict conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) are fully met. Your Notice fails to demonstrate that all POFA requirements have been strictly adhered to, including, but not limited to, the specific wording and timing requirements. Furthermore, it does not provide clear evidence that the land is not excluded land (e.g., subject to airport bylaws). Unless you can provide unequivocal evidence of full POFA compliance, liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to me as keeper.

5. Grace Period – BPA Code of Practice Breached The entire duration of the stay was 12 minutes, during which the driver attempted to use the Starbucks facility but was unable to do so due to its closure. The British Parking Association Code of Practice mandates specific grace periods:

Section 13.2 requires a reasonable grace period to leave the car park if a driver decides not to park.
Section 13.3 requires a further 10-minute period to leave after a stay. Issuing a charge for such a brief visit, where the driver entered, found the intended facility unusable due to closure, and exited promptly within what constitutes a reasonable period for entry, assessment, and departure (well under the combined minimum 15-minute grace period advised), is a clear breach of this guidance.

Request for Cancellation Given:

The driver’s genuine intention to use Starbucks.
The impossibility of compliance due to the store being closed and the primary registration system being unavailable.
The lack of clear, unambiguous signage and the failure to adequately communicate alternative registration methods, leading to no contract formation.
The short 12-minute stay, which falls well within the BPA grace period guidelines.
And your apparent lack of grounds to pursue keeper liability under POFA 2012.

I request that this charge be cancelled immediately. Should you reject this appeal, I will escalate to POPLA and request a full case review based on the above points. Please provide the required POPLA code if you do not agree to cancel.

Yours faithfully,