MET - PCN - Southgate Park, Stansted

Found a suggestion to use ...."Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62.Requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.".


As it is not clear that there is a boundary between the different parts of the Site, this is contrary to the CRA, as it "causes a significant imbalance in the parties!!!8217; rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer" and as such "1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer.".

Hi,

just a final check on the appeal before I post to POPLA. Is this ok please?


POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxx
MET Parking Services PCN no: xxxxxxx

A Notice to Registered Keeper from MET Parking Services dated 11th June 2018 which stated that at 17:42 on 3rd May 2018 at Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY the vehicle registered to me was observed parked in an apparent breach of the terms and conditions. The notice states the reason as !!!8220;Vehicle left in Southgate Park car park without payment made for parking and occupants left Southgate Park premises!!!8221;.

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my
appeal for the following reasons.
1) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
2) The site boundary is not clear.
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
5) As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 !!!8211; the contract terms and notices are not fair
6) Amount demanded is a penalty

Further to the objections above, I understand that the notice to keeper [Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 section 9 (4) and (5)] must be given by sending it by post so that it is delivered within 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The notice to keeper states that parking took place on 3rd May 2018 but is dated 11th June 2018 which is more than this notice period.

1) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention.
The notice states, !!!8220;while you left Southgate Park walking in the direction of McDonald's!!!8221;; but walking in the direction of McDonalds doesn!!!8217;t mean that McDonalds was used. The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged breach of terms and conditions stated as left the premises are still photos. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that drivers can see while on site, in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.
Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site' this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park. Even if shown walking in the direction of McDonalds, doesn!!!8217;t mean that McDonalds was used. A driver could be simply going to read the entrance sign, as any circumspect motorist knowing how predatory parking firms are, would do in order to protect themselves from the sort of 'outrageous scam' exposed by MPs in Parliament in February when they discussed the wholly out of control 'rogue' parking industry.
The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of McDonalds patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the current GDPR legislation.
Given some parking operators' modus operandi of handing anyone on site (landowners, local busybodies, shop workers, office workers) a camera and telling them they will pay a bounty for 'PCNs' issued, it cannot be assumed that the person who took the images is even a parking firm employee. Even if they are, this is still a random person with no DBS check clearance, taking photos not of cars and PCNs (as per their limited licence by the landowner) but of people and families going about their daily life. MET are then processing these people's personal images and sending those photos in the post, unsolicited, to a registered keeper of a car who may or may not know the persons in the photographs, who may be nothing to do with that vehicle at all.


2) The site boundary is not clear.
There are no legible markings distinguishing the boundary of Southgate Park. There is one entrance to the site by vehicle. How does one know that one has left the site? McDonald!!!8217;s address (for the building in this area) is Southgate Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY and Starbuck!!!8217;s address is London Stansted Airport, Southgate Rd, Bishop's Stortford CM24 1PY , so any reasonable person would see that the parking area around McDonald!!!8217;s building is Southgate.
In addition, McDonald!!!8217;s offers a drive through service and the entry point into this would presumably (since there isn!!!8217;t any boundary marking) be from Southgate Park.

This photograph is an aerial shot of the car park covering Starbucks and McDonalds.


It can be seen that the physical boundary for the site is marked in blue. There is only one entrance to the site !!!8211; circled in red. Leaving the site !!!8211; to a reasonable person !!!8211; would mean to leave the vehicle within this boundary and go to a place outside the boundary. A reasonable person would understand that this condition would be in place to stop people parking and possibly going to the airport.
Below is a photograph of the view between McDonald!!!8217;s and Starbuck!!!8217;s buildings. There isn!!!8217;t any clearly defined boundary to show that one part of a carpark is different to another part of the car park.


The sign at the nearby fuel station is below.

Parking in this area is also managed by MET. The wording here, !!!8220;while on premises!!!8221; would reinforce the idea that parking at the McDonalds/Starbuck area is one premise and the fueling area is a different premise. And these two areas have a physical boundary and separate entrances !!!8211; as shown by the photo below.
There is a physical boundary of bushes (red circle) between the McDonalds/Starbuck area and the BP fuel station. The entrance to Starbuck/McDonald!!!8217;s, being a shared entrance, and separate from the BP section which has its own entrance. The other areas are all physically bound and with separate entrances !!!8211; so a reasonable person would conclude that leaving the premise (site) would mean to leave the whole section that contains Starbucks/McDonalds.



3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. In addition, there is no reference as the driver enters the car park that the site is split into sections. As the driver turns into the site, this is the view.

There are two signs which state, !!!8220;McDonald!!!8217;s Customers Only Maximum Stay 60 minutes!!!8221;

An initial glance as a driver passes the signs would pick up that there is one car park with 60 minutes free stay. This is a common term and condition at paying car parks to prevent over stay. A reasonable person would understand that 60 minutes stay at the car park to use the various services is sufficient and to prevent long stay parking associated with the nearby airport.
Further as the driver moves further into the site, the sign below can be seen. Again, it isn!!!8217;t clear that there is a split between the parking a vehicle in one part of the site and parking in a different part of the site.



The road markings also suggest that McDonald!!!8217;s !!!8220;drive thru!!!8221; takes the driver through the same car park. See the photograph below.


There are different MET parking signs all with differing wording within 20 yards of each other. The site as any reasonable person would presume is the whole of the area. If the driver had parked here and gone to the BP fueling garage then this could be seen as leaving the site, but as Starbucks don't sell Big Mac's, it would be unreasonable to expect a driver to move the car from one area of a single car park to another to satisfy some a term on a sign just so that they could eat.
It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion.
They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions; such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the
land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

5) As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 !!!8211; the contract terms and notices are not fair
The Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 62 states that there is a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.
As it is not clear that there is a boundary between the different parts of the site, this is contrary to the CRA, as it "causes a significant imbalance in the parties; rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer" and as such (1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer."

6) Amount demanded is a penalty
The amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage is neither clear not ample and cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.
To suggest that the car park shared by Starbucks, McDonalds and some other food outlets are different car parks (albeit managed by MET) is ludicrous. Further to attempt to obtain £100 for the use of a car park for approximately 40 minutes when the driver has stayed within the physical boundary of the space is nothing more than a penalty. It is this type of practice that has led to the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19, currently going through the Houses of Parliament where drivers will receive new legal protections from unscrupulous private parking operators.


I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

The Newbies post 3 advises that I now do the following.....(i.e. read through their 40+ pdf document and look through the evidence and find things to rebut - such as the signage being unclear, illegible, sparse/nothing to show how close the car was to a sign.
Your comments are to rebut the operator's case, blow by blow.


and Read the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky thread now;