Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Feelcheated
    • By Feelcheated 12th Jul 18, 10:01 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Feelcheated
    MET - PCN - Southgate Park, Stansted
    • #1
    • 12th Jul 18, 10:01 PM
    MET - PCN - Southgate Park, Stansted 12th Jul 18 at 10:01 PM
    Hi,


    looking for some assistance please.
    I found this forum a little too late - but hopefully not too late.
    I have read some of the notes for new posters - which is why I have said I found the forum a little late.....as I have already responded on the MET appeals page.


    I stopped off for refreshment at the services using the car park noting that I had a free hour - so kept within the 1 hour and went to pick up point at airport.


    I thought nothing more until I received in the post a PCN from MET. I logged onto their portal and saw photos of my vehicle and photos (blurred facial) of myself and my child getting out of the car crossing the car park past Starbucks and then returning to my car. The photos have time stamps.


    I assumed they were saying that I had exceeded the 1 hour and appealed on their portal. I hadn't seen this forum at this point.

    I did select Driver as the choice not Keeper. My appeal stated, "I was issued with a parking ticket (dated 11th June 2018) for parking at Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY on 03May 2018. I believe that this ticket was issued unfairly. I am not liable for the amount payable because:
    My car was parked there only between approx 17:00 and approx 17:42 (less than 1 hour). The signage indicated I was entitled to park at these times without charge. I understand that you are obliged to provide evidence that the car was parked in breach of the rules."


    On 25th June they sent an email with a letter stating,

    "Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge notice. After careful consideration we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
    We note your comments however the charge notice was not issued for overstay it was issued because you left your car
    in this car park without paying for parking and left the site. . The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the car park is a pay by phone car park, that there
    is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers, while they are on the premises only, that McDonald's is not on Southgate Park and that if you wish to park here and visit locations that are not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald's you must pay for parking. Our records show that your vehicle was left in this car park while you left Southgate Park walking in the direction of McDonald's therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
    We have attached a copy of the sign that is displayed at this car park as well as a photograph of your car parked in close proximity to one of these signs. It remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions.
    This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:
    1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days of today’s date. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will revert to £100.
    2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system atopla using verification code: xxxxxxxxx8 Please note that POPLA will consider
    the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law.
    Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA’s decision NOT go in your favour, you will
    be required to pay the full amount of £100. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services
    provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.
    3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action"



    Sorry, if I have missed some hints to follow but the guidance I was picking up from the forum appeared to be for people that hadn't already contacted MET using the appeal process.


    Any guidance welcome, thank you in anticipation.
Page 2
    • Feelcheated
    • By Feelcheated 6th Aug 18, 12:19 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Feelcheated
    Thanks for the suggestions so far. My draft rebuttal is:


    I take this opportunity to rebut MET!!!8217;s response based upon,

    1) Site boundary is NOT clear. MET have stated that they perceive boundaries as signage. A !!!8216;boundary!!!8217; is a line which marks the limits of an area (Oxford dictionary). A boundary agreement would be where neighbours agree that the legal boundary between their properties is the middle of a hedge, or there may be a post and rail fence and a brick wall running close together between two properties and the owners agree which of the two possible boundary !!!8216;features!!!8217; marks the legal boundary. (Gov UK web). I have shown on my evidence where the physical boundary is and it covers the entire site.

    I maintain there is no clear physical boundary (a wall/fence/roped off area).

    2) As there is no clear physical boundary, !!!8220;photographic evidence!!!8221; that !!!8220;demonstrates that he left the premises!!!8221; cannot be sufficient evidence of any contravention. In fact, MET have stated that there are a !!!8220;total of 19 signs located at this site!!!8221; referring to the section that they refer to as Starbucks and that as they deem the boundary to be made up of signage, !!!8220;boundaries of the site are clearly marked by the signage!!!8221; how would a motorist know that they have left the premises without reading the other MET signs that are located on the McDonald!!!8217;s section of the carpark. It would only be after reading every sign that one can ascertain which bay MET were associating with which facility and which condition they applied to each.

    I maintain there is Insufficient evidence of any contravention.

    3) Evidence of landowner authority.
    MET haven!!!8217;t released the full un-redacted contract as requested. The contract states that Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited is the landowner and not Starbucks.
    MET!!!8217;s contract Schedule 1 !!!8211; The Site, states the car park is, !!!8220;Starbucks Carpark, Stansted Amenity Area, A120, Stansted Airport!!!8221;, but this address hasn!!!8217;t been used in any correspondence (Section B !!!8211; Original Charge Notice or SECTION C !!!8211; Liability Trail). All MET references, to the supposed breach of a condition, have been to !!!8216;Southgate Park!!!8217; Stansted. With this difference in address !!!8211; how is it possible to know where the actual premise is?

    MET has stated in Section A (Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site) !!!8220;Southgate Park !!!8211; Stansted Customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park, surveys may be carried out. No free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not in Southgate Park.!!!8221;

    HOWEVER, their contract Schedule 5 !!!8211; Site Terms and Conditions, Authorised Use, states, !!!8220;Southgate Park !!!8211; Stansted Customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park, surveys may be carried out.!!!8221; [END OF TEXT] There is no further text stating, !!!8216;No free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not in Southgate Park!!!8217;. It appears that MET are applying different T&Cs to their contract.

    Schedule 4 !!!8211; Term of Agreement has a commencement date of 01/11/2013 for a Fixed Period of 24 months after which point it becomes an ongoing agreement. MET has confirmed that neither Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited nor MET Parking have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. The original contract does allow for the installation of an ANPR System to record vehicle activity HOWEVER
    there is no mention of allowing the installation of CCTV to record people in the car park without their authorisation. As there has been no change in the contract from 2013, this is surely a breach of their contract.



    Any further suggestions advice please?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Aug 18, 1:18 PM
    • 3,722 Posts
    • 4,532 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You will be aware you only have 2000 CHARACTERS to rebut with
    So, start again
    Pare it down. Remove quotes. SHORT BULLETS only.
    • Feelcheated
    • By Feelcheated 6th Aug 18, 2:09 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Feelcheated
    Ah! 2000 characters not words!! Hmm.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Aug 18, 2:45 PM
    • 19,824 Posts
    • 31,308 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Ah! 2000 characters not words!! Hmm.
    Originally posted by Feelcheated
    Yep, you've got just over 3,800 there, so need to cut by a half.

    Use bulletpoints. Take out some of the legginess in sentences, reduce some of the detailed explanations that are more scene-setting than hard-hitting rebuttals.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Feelcheated
    • By Feelcheated 6th Aug 18, 2:54 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Feelcheated
    2000 characters...

    I rebut MET!!!8217;s response
    1) Site boundary is NOT clear. MET perceive signage as a boundary. Boundary is a line marking limits of an area (Ox Dict). A boundary agreement is the boundary between properties eg hedge, post, fence a feature marks the boundary. (Gov UK web). None exists in this instance.
    2) Since above applies the photographic evidence cannot be sufficient evidence of any contravention. In fact, MET claim a total of 19 signs are displayed on Sbucks side and that as they deem signage as boundary a motorist wouldn!!!8217;t know that they have left the premises without reading all the other MET signs including any on McDonald!!!8217;s section.
    3) MET!!!8217;s contract Schedule 1 !!!8211; The Site is Starbucks Carpark, Stansted Amenity Area, A120, Stansted Airport, but this address hasn!!!8217;t been used in any correspondence (Section B or SECTION C). MET refers to !!!8216;Southgate Park!!!8217; Stansted. As the address isn!!!8217;t the same how can it be concluded where boundary of sites exist.
    4) MET!!!8217;s T&Cs of Parking on Site state !!!8220;Southgate Park !!!8211; Stansted Customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park, surveys may be carried out. No free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not in Southgate Park!!!8221; however, Schedule 5 !!!8211; Site Terms and Conditions, Authorised Use, states, !!!8220;Southgate Park !!!8211; Stansted Customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park, surveys may be carried out.!!!8221; [END] There is no text in contract using the wording !!!8216;No free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not in Southgate Park!!!8217;. MET applying different T&Cs to the contract.
    5) Schedule 4 !!!8211; Term of Agreement. MET confirms no change to original agreement. The contract allows for the installation of an ANPR System to record vehicle activity however, there is no mention of allowing CCTV to record people.
    6) There is 1 entry from the road - the sign doesn!!!8217;t state the car park is sub divided. Why not paint the bays?
    I maintain no contract was made.
    • Feelcheated
    • By Feelcheated 5th Sep 18, 8:09 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Feelcheated
    Hmmm, thanks Popla! Skipped across the fact that there is no obvious boundary.


    So next stage...and newbies thread says...

    It changes nothing, just takes you back to square one. It is not a reason to pay, even though the decision will tell you to! Searching this forum for 'lost POPLA':

    looking now....
    • Feelcheated
    • By Feelcheated 5th Sep 18, 8:27 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Feelcheated
    and the advice appears to be......


    sit tight,
    ignore any Debt collector letters
    see if this is taken to Court (A Court hearing doesn't necessarily follow a popla appeal)

    in addition lobby local MP
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 18, 10:25 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,674 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Exactly right.

    Lucky that MET never sue anyone, but keep all paperwork for 6 years, in case.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Sep 18, 10:32 PM
    • 19,824 Posts
    • 31,308 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Has POPLA turn down your appeal? Can we see their reasoning? Please do us a favour and put some paragraphs into their wall of text response.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Feelcheated
    • By Feelcheated 6th Sep 18, 6:58 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Feelcheated
    Yes, appeal turned down.
    • paulioooo
    • By paulioooo 24th Sep 18, 5:49 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    paulioooo
    Did POPLA ever give their reason for rejection? Have MET tried to contact you since?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,465Posts Today

7,714Users online

Martin's Twitter