Challanging parking ticket from Med Parking in Stansted Mcdonalds Starbucks Southgate park at Court

Daniels7

Dear Forumites,

I am seeking assistance in preparing a defence to HM Courts & Tribunals Service regarding a parking charge I believe to be unjust.

The dispute concerns signage and boundary clarity at a location referred to as "Southgate Park," which includes Costa and McDonald's premises. The lack of clear demarcation between car parks creates confusion, especially in low-light conditions. On the date in question, we parked believing it was a shared retail car park. Costa was closed, and we departed within 30 minutes and 7 seconds. However, CCTV footage was used to allege an overstay in a "free" car park that was not actually free at the time.

I believe the signage is misleading and contributes to widespread misunderstanding. I would also like to explore whether others are willing to join efforts to challenge these practices and advocate for clearer signage and the reimbursement of improperly issued charges.

I’d appreciate your guidance on which line of defence you would recommend, or who might be best to consult. I’m happy to cover any associated fees for the service.

Please see the attached documents for reference.

Car1980

It's a DCB Legal claim anyway, so will be discontinued.

Just use the template defence and use a brief explanation for your paragraph 3.

The actual signage nitty gritty is for your witness statement, but you'll probably not get that far.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 30/09/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 05/10/25 and before 19/10/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 03/11/25 You will receive assistance via this thread and you can self-help by reading ALL the other threads about this well known trap by searching the forum for Met Stansted and changing the drop-down box to "Newest" If you want to "challenge the practices" on a more generic scale, write to your MP and copy in the MP for the Stansted area.

patient_dream

MET PSRKING AT STANSTED IS JUST A MEGA SCAM
WATCH THIS VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RcNM4SM0

DCBL love this scam  and no doubt they have added a scam £70 to the claim and called it damages ??? 
Very MISLEADING for you and a court
The courts do not like scammers

Daniels7

Thank you for your help! 

Could you advise on which defense template would be most appropriate, and what strategy would be the most effective in this situation?

Would it be appropriate to submit the video link above as evidence to the court, showing that this situation could be confusing to the public and that the boundaries are not clearly marked? Additionally, how could I determine the location of Southgate Park when there are no signs indicating it, and only one entrance and exit?

This is my first experience with the court process and I am not sure what is allowed.

MET has claimed that I used the car park while Starbucks was closed. According to their records, I entered shortly after midnight, and the time spent in the car park, based on the photos, was 30 minutes and 33 seconds. I was sure that fit within the free time range (1 hour).

MET's response to my appeal:

"The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the car park is a pay by phone car park but there is a 60-minute free stay for Southgate Park customers. At the time your vehicle was parked on site the premises located at Southgate Park (Starbucks) was closed and therefore you were not a customer. As such, the free parking period was not available, but no payment was made for your stay. Therefore, we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it.

We are confident that there are sufficient signs, which are made using a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA1, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs, at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists. The signs are visible during the hours of darkness as they reflect light from the lamp posts they are fixed to, ambient light and light from vehicles themselves. It remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking"

Gr1pr

There is only one standard defence template,  in post 2 in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  so adapt it and draft your defence from it

You dont need any videos or maps etc until the possible Witness Statement plus Exhibits bundle,  next year,  possibly next summer,  so pointless spending time on it this year, deal with completing the AOS online on MCOL ASAP first,  if not done already,  then draft your defence proposition,  lets see your changed paragraphs below,  for feedback 

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

So its 5 minutes after kickoff in the first half,  no point worrying about the second half or Penalty shootouts 

patient_dream

The problem with this one car park even though there are two otlets, it was knowingly split into two as a money trap.
There are more signs than MET gas had hot dinners.  It's bad enough in daylight and impossible to stop and read but at night, they are saying the signs will reflect from a cars ambient lighting but as the driver will be watching where he is going. They think al the signs form a contract but it could be said this is frustration of contract as there are far to many to read especially at night

If MET were really intesred in stopping cars parking when an outlet is closed there is a simple answer and that is a barrier.
MET decised the stupid setup we see now

This indeed is a huge money trap and their letter is rubbish, a court judge would find the area very confusing

No harm giving the Joe Lycett link