MET Parking PCN, Stansted, NTK,

Le_Kirk

The NEWBIE sticky clearly states blue text only so that you don't inadvertently give driver's name! 

Ciderspace666

Yep, all good… Thanks

Ciderspace666

Follow up.....

I received an email in reply to my appeal, 4 pages long containing 2 pages of a letter, the same 4 photos of the license plate & entry/exit, 3 pictures of their signs (though not of the actual onsite signs, just some stock pics) and 1 pic of the site plan showing both car parks. It is quite the convincing read. I also have my POPLA code.

Despite having read the NEWBIE section, I am not sure what to do next exactly. The letter states "please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws' and goes on to state they are entitled to purse the registered keeper.

Again, the driver did not notice any signage regards any terms... but the letter reads clearly that it is the drivers responsibility to check these things...

Please could someone advise best course of action? Thank you.

doubledotcom

Ciderspace666 said:

The letter states "please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws' and goes on to state they are entitled to purse the registered keeper.

They can state whatever they like in their mendacious letter. The simple fact is that the land, whether "private" or not, sits within the Stansted Airport boundary that is covered by the byelaws. Therefore, no matter how much they squeal and rant about it, it doesn't change the facts. No Keeper liability.

Ciderspace666

What I dont know is how to respond to their email/POPLA code etc..... any help much appreciated. 

Le_Kirk

Does the letter not give instructions on how to go about submitting POPLA appeal?  To construct a POPLA appeal use information from the successful POPLA outcomes thread and bear in mind what @doubledotcom wrote

Coupon-mad

Ciderspace666 said:

What I don't know is how to respond to their email/POPLA code etc.

I find that strange. All you need to do is search the forum, to find a winning one to copy about the same site, from this year. This is how the forum works best.

You'll already know the basics of how to do POPLA - which box to tick - from when you read the third post of the NEWBIES thread.

Ciderspace666

Update... I submitted the POPLA appeal and have recently received a response asking me to review the 'evidence' sent by MET Parkings in response - it is quite substantial. I have a few days left to add anything more to help my case. Seems I included an outdated Airport map - doh! - and the most recent one they include shows the site to be outside the Airport boundary. I'd upload their evidence pack but cant see an option to do that here... In summary, this is their response - no formatting from them!

In the appeal to POPLA Mr xxxxx raises the following grounds for appeal: • The

driver was a customer of McDonald’s but was unaware that McDonald’s was not

part of Southgate Park In this instance, the driver was not entitled to the free

parking period as they were not a Starbucks customer and had not registered

their vehicle. As advised on the signs, only Starbucks 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 which is not part of

Southgate Park. 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 the free parking period is

only available for Starbucks customers, thereby excluding customers of

McDonald’s. 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 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. There is

no requirement to have images of a vehicle parked on site when managing a car

park using ANPR technology. • The site falls within the boundaries of the Airport

and is subject to statutory control We note that Mr xxxxxx claims the land on

which the charge was issued is not relevant land as defined under PoFA and the

basis of their argument is that the land falls within the boundaries of Stansted

Airport. We are also aware that he has submitted an outdated plan that remains

available on the internet which he is seeking to rely on to support his argument.

The plan submitted, however, was superseded and replaced when the airport

sold the land in 2011. Map of Stansted Airport from the Stansted airport website

- Area highlighted in yellow is clearly outside the boundary of the airport The

current plan for Stansted Airport pictured above shows that Southgate Park (the

area highlighted in yellow) does not fall within the airport boundary. The map

can be found on the Stansted Airport website at:

https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/a7ebfb2621/mag-

sealed-amended-claim-form-updated.pdf?_gl=1*3pf4ff*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE This was

used in the recent injunction against Just Stop Oil protesters. We also include in

section E: o an extract from the title deeds and title plan that show the freehold

was sold on 2 August 2011 to Grove Developments; and o correspondence

received from Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land

that is owned and in the possession of the airport. In light of this it is clear that

the land is not subject to the airport byelaws and instead falls within the

definition of relevant land under the terms of PoFA. Therefore, where we do not

know the name and serviceable address of the driver and have complied with all

pertinent conditions of Schedule 4 to PoFA we may pursue the registered keeper

for payment of an outstanding charge. Please see our compliant Notice to

Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of

why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in

Section C of our evidence pack. To summarise, 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 this is a pay by phone

car park 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.

Any further assistance much appreciated..

Coupon-mad

" title plan that show the freehold
was sold on 2 August 2011 to Grove Developments"

So Is their landowner authority in the evidence pack from Grove Developments or from one of the leasehold retailers?

Ciderspace666

It says this

"The land was purchased by Grove Developments who have subsequently leased it to our client, Tabacon, as part of their Stansted Airport Amenity Area' development project - , dated 3/9/14"

It also mentions this, I note the bit in bold..

"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. "

I also note that Schedule 5 of the lease states "South Gate Park has 60 minutes free" but this isnt specific to Starbucks itself, just a red box highlight around a postcode CM241AA, whcih doesnt appear to be for Starbucks, just the whole site? I cant seem to pin this down...

Their evidence amounts to 55 pages! Mine was 2!