Hi that's correct I have already appealed to popla. Above large paragraph is from them with MET response. Now they're asking for my counter argument. But my argument is it doesn't say you can't park if Starbucks is closed.. I also didn't leave car

Thank you for replying. I'm unsure what you mean? What do you suggest i reply to them? What is a letter of claim and what do I do if I get one?

Please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 10/11/2023 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 16/11/2023 3 Date received 5/12/2023 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes. However I parked less than 30 minutes. Starbucks was closed, but nowhere does it say you cannot park if starbucks is not closed. 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes - I have said the above. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up In the appeal to POPLA Mr X raises the following grounds for appeal: • He did not overstay the free parking period and the signage does not say you cannot use the car park if Starbucks is closed The free 60-minute parking period is only available to motorists whilst they are a customer of Southgate Park (Starbucks). At the time the vehicle was on site Starbucks was closed and therefore Mr X was not a customer. As such, he was not entitled to the free parking period and payment was required for his stay. • The site boundary is unclear 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. 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 blue and white signs shown in Section E of our evidence pack. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. • No evidence of landowner authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach. • As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 the contract terms and notices are not fair We would like to point out that the terms and conditions apply to all users of the site. Landowners may impose any constraints they wish on use of their land, however, please note that in particular reference to parking, the enforceability of parking charge notices on private land has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, which may be found at: 7 Who is the parking company? MET 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Stansted For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Doesnt say docs1.pdf

Thank you for your kind reply, but it says the thread is locked? Shall I post here?

I have read a few threads already on this but would appreciate your help. I had parked at this car park to get coffee from Starbucks. However starbucks was closed. Now to park here you can stay for free one hour. However I stayed less than 30 minutes, but they still sent me a PCN. I appealed, they rejected I went to POPLA. I have received the below and would appreciate your help. BTW It does NOT state if starbucks is closed you cannot park or anything to that accord which was my defence. I never left my car: In the appeal to POPLA Mr X raises the following grounds for appeal: • He did not overstay the free parking period and the signage does not say you cannot use the car park if Starbucks is closed The free 60-minute parking period is only available to motorists whilst they are a customer of Southgate Park (Starbucks). At the time the vehicle was on site Starbucks was closed and therefore Mr X was not a customer. As such, he was not entitled to the free parking period and payment was required for his stay. • The site boundary is unclear 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. 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 blue and white signs shown in Section E of our evidence pack. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. • No evidence of landowner authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach. • As per Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 the contract terms and notices are not fair We would like to point out that the terms and conditions apply to all users of the site. Landowners may impose any constraints they wish on use of their land, however, please note that in particular reference to parking, the enforceability of parking charge notices on private land has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, which may be found at: The resource cannot be found. WWW.SUPREMECOURT.UK Please help!