Thanks for the info!

OK, so heres a little update. I made a 'Subject access request' in early January and posted the letter, signed for, next-day delivery, which MET responded to in early February (the letter was dated within the time frame, but I didn't receive it until later). It contained no new information that I didn't already have. No other correspondence has been received, so I thought perhaps they were dropping their charge attempt? Roll on to last week and I received a 'Pay Now' letter from Debt Recovery Plus. It states that four payment deadlines have been missed, and this is the last opportunity to pay an increased charge, or face potential court action. I've not received any other notifications, since getting the SAR request response. There is a schedule attached headed Terminal Contact, with a big list of actions they claim they have complied with and that legal action is now imminent. Although, it's obviously a pro-forma unsigned scare tactic document. They also refer to (as people have highlighted on this forum) the Parking Eye vs Beavis Case. It seems I just have to see if they are actually going to raise a county court case?

Thanks Nicky Boy, thats exactly the point i'd be happy to argue in court. The alleged period of parking was within the 60 free period, I didn't leave the site to go to mcdonalds and signage only states that you need to use the pay by phone service if you are extending the stay.

Met has surprisingly responded to my e-mail, with this; Please note that this charge was issued using ANPR cameras and not CCTV, therefore we do not have any CCTV or video footage to provide. We have enclosed all of the available photographic evidence. As previously advised, there was only 1 visit recorded for your vehicle. As we have reached our final decision our internal appeals process is now closed, and any further correspondence received by us in respect of this charge may go unanswered. Interestingly MET state they have no CCTV footage to provide, but given they have been supplying it in the cases of 'Reverse Trespass' I would think its safe to assume that there is permanent monitoring of the site. I'll get that SAR off to them......

It was via e-mail, but I will look to do so with an official SAR

Apologies and thank you

is it worth appealing via POPLA, or is it just a case of sitting it out and seeing how far they progress it. I realise I'm going to be notified the reduced fee period has elapsed and I then assume a string of demands will follow, followed by a threat of DCA and possibly court action. I've also asked for 50 minutes of CCTV footage of the alleged parking violation, although they have bluntly told me any further correspondence may not receive a response.

A good thought thanks, I may do that. I have today e-mailed Euro Garages as suggested in another thread, which seems to have been recommended by Starbucks. I have since noted the signage states no return within 60 minutes of the vehicle departing, i need to be cautious with the double dipping issue. Not withstanding, the parking charge notice was for a period of 50 minutes and there is clearly a 60 minute free parking period. The MET Parking take seems to be that because Starbucks is closed, this free parking period isnt available, but there is no wording on the sign to support this. It also states that you may extend your stay up to total of 3 hours using the pay by phone app. Nothing to state that you need to do so when entering and using the 60 minute free period. The sign is either deliberately ambiguous to catch people out, or worded poorly unintentionally (yeah right) but in either case I think i's be happy to stand up in court and argue the case? I'll see what EuroGarages come up with. I suspect MET Parking will not respond to my second appeal response as they stated; It seems they only allow one appeal, but again this is not stated or clarified in any of their wording. Met Parking are so dodgy its unbelievable

Google maps location sharing switched off Don't have a personal facebook account Don't wear a watch All location tracking switched off on phone Just one person in the car My pitch for appeal is around the signage and its lack of clarity. I may not have any chance, but its worth a look rather than to give these shysters £60

They have said there is only one recorded entry and departure, which is incorrect. However, I have no proof of me leaving and returning as the dashcam footage has been overwritten. The line they seem to be taking is because Starbucks was closed (i didn't know that until arriving) technically you can't be a customer and the 60 minute free parking is therefore not available, and you have to pay. Yet there is nothing on the signage that confirms this to be the case. There is nothing to state that you must use the app to take advantage of the free parking period. This is their response to the 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 and that there is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers. Your vehicle was observed parked in breach of these terms as the premises located at Southgate Park (Starbucks) was closed at the time and no payment was made for your stay, therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it. We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and 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' southgatesignage.pdf

Thanks! For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] (must be received within 14 days from the Incident) Please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 27th November 2023 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 29th November 2023 3 Date received 13th December 2023 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] yes Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N 7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. N I've just realised I didn't keep copies of my appeal text (on the Met appeals page) and i can't see a way to retrieve them from the site? 2023-11-29 NTK for PCN 2023-11-27.pdf

I received a Notice to Keeper from this MET site for a contravention on the 27th November, the notice was issued on the 29th November and I received it in the post on the 13th December. Having read that you shouldn't ignore it, I posted an appeal on the same day (looks like that was a mistake?) they responded asking me to provide evidence that I didnt contravene the terms & conditions. I had entered and left the carpark, then returned some 10 minutes or so later and they stated that there was only one entry and exit. I responded with another appeal, this time questioning my 50 minute stay, given there is a 60 minute free parking option. The signage states that the 60 minute free period is for Southgate customers only, ie Starbucks. But that was shut at the time I arrived in the car park, there is also nothing to state that you have to log your stay on the ring go app for this free period (why would you if its free?) it also doesnt say that the free period is void if the Starbucks is closed. I did not leave the car to go any other site. ie McDonalds. i have responded again pointing these discrepancies out, despite them saying i have reached the end of their appeals process. I have responded as the Registered Keeper, and have been very careful with my wording so as to not confirm who the driver was. Their responses have used pretty aggressive language, with the threat of court action if the fee isnt paid. They have also supplied a POPLA verification code. Should I go ahead and appeal via POPLA, or just wait to see if they drop it to their debt resolution agents or issue a court summons? I was interested by this wording - By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) 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. Does this indicate that MET are in bed with POPLA?