Jump to content


MET ANPR PCN - occupants left Southgate premises - Appeal Refused - Starbucks/McDonalds Southgate Park, Stansted Airport CM24 1PY ***Cancelled by Euro Garages***


Recommended Posts

My wife recently received a parking charge notice for this very car park for parking here on 19th August 23 (39mins).

Thus far we have questioned what the notice was for, which was not clear at all and was eventually told why (parking in bay outside starbucks but next to McD's drive thru and visited McD's)

Apparently McD's is NOT in Southgate Park, (actually Starbucks isn't either as address is A120 Thremhall Ave, Stansted CM24 1PY

We did point out the sign next to car stated (along these word) free parking whilst using these facilities (Plural) on this site (Site not defined-no road or boundary markings or any kind of barrier other than terms and condition signs)

To date as of yesterday our appeal has been rejected (no surprise there) my wife did make the mistake of asking what 'WE' had done wrong but not mentioned who was driving (was not her but she is registered keeper and we have told them she was NOT driving  and easily proven by their cctv.

She has now been told if she appeals to POPLA and it is rejected charge will increase to £100 (not sure if that's legal if within given time frame of original charge)

My wife is a worrier and wants to pay BUT I don't on principal, sure if we had done something 'wrong' but we haven't and this is clearly a money trap/scam all be it potentially legal?

I see some have successfully written to Starbuck who have passed on to land owner and who had their charge quashed -

Is this the next step if so how and advice on what we should say or do we appeal to POPLA (who I assume will look after their own)?

 

Thanks in advance

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife recently received a penalty notice for this very car park for parking here on 19th August 23 (39mins).

Thus far we have questioned what the notice was for, which was not clear at all and was eventually told why (parking in bay outside starbucks but next to McD's drive thru and visited McD's)

 

Apparently McD's is NOT in Southgate Park, (actually Starbucks isn't either as address is A120 Thremhall Ave, Stansted CM24 1PY

We did point out the sign next to car stated (along these word) free parking whilst using these facilities (Plural) on this site (Site not defined-no road or boudary markings or any kind of barrrier other tthan terms and condition signs)

To date as of yesterday our appeal has been rejected (no surprise there) my wife did make the mistake of asking what 'WE' had done wrong but not mentioned who was driving (was not her but she is registered keeper and we have told them she was NOT driving  and easily proven by their cctv.

She has now been told if she appeals to POPLA and it is rejected penalty will increase to £100 (not sure if that's legal if within given time frame of original penalty)

My wife is a worrier and wants to pay BUT I don't on principal, sure if we had done something 'wrong' but we haven't and this is clearly a money trap/scam all be it potentially legal?

I see some have succesfully written to Starbuck who have passed on to land owner and who had their penalty quoshed - Is this the next step if so how and advice on what we should say or do we appeal to POPLA (who I assume will look after their own)?

 

Thanks in advance

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Honda Z50M said:

My wife recently received a penalty notice

it is NOT a Penalty Charge Notice - its a Parking charge Notice - a fake speculative invoice

next time never appeal!

we also need the text of you appeal please and all letters in/out (bothsides) to one Mass PDF

read upload Carefully

dx

 

 

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET ANPR PCN - Appeal Refused - Starbucks/McDonalds Southgate Park, Stansted Airport CM24 1PY

Looking through the vast number of cases we have for this site - well the first 50 actually - MET have only had the gonads to do court on one occasion.  They know they are trying it on with a scam and generally daren't put their bilge in front of a judge.

Worryingly the one court case they did go for was recent and against someone who appealed and made a load of admissions in writing.

So if you can upload the documentation and what you wrote to them it would be very helpful.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks for your replies and advice thus far here (hopefully attached) are letters from MET to date

There doesn't appear to be anything showing exactly what our queries/appeals said apart from one which I copied from my wifes email.

Initial reply to first letter (posted by MET) just asking them to clarify what the fine was for

they replied with the 2nd letter (emailed by MET)

Our reply to 2nd letter via appeals below

Dear Appeals

Team thank you for your letter, unfortunately we are still no clearer to why the fine was issued in your description

Issue date: 14/09/2023

Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above charge. The charge was issued as the occupants of the

vehicle were recorded parking on site and then leaving the premises in the direction of McDonald's without having made

payment of the appropriate tariff. The car was recorded as entering the car park at 09:32 and exiting at 09:59.

1)Where had we parked in error that warranted a fine  ?  

2) which site can you name it please ?  

3) and if we were heading to the exit in the direction of McDonalds why does this warrant  a fine .

If you answer very specifically and clearly points above ( 1,2,3) and we were parked incorrectly and or  used an incorrect entrance/exit and there was appropriate signage then we will be able to acknowledge the £60 fine.

We are still appealing this fine until you can clarify in very specific text why it is has been issued.   As previously mentioned this this not a refusal but its still not clear the reason for the fine.

Yours sincerely

After 3rd letter (emailed by MET) we replied along the lines of (in brief)

Amount of free parking using these facilities (PLURAL) on this site (site no clearly defined) as well as there being no road markings or visible boundaries/barriers etc

Also clarified that on that specific date and time I (fine addressee) was NOT driving the car which can be easily corroborated by CCTV.

Met reply with last letter (emailed by MET) with final decision.

 

I wonder if MET don't go to court as for them is high risk that may set a president and open a flood gate of them having to repay fines?

2023-09-14 NTK + MET Replies To multiple Appeals.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since they've given you the opportunity... Go and download their wonderful "photographic evidence" from appealmetparking.com

I see it's an appeal portal, so if they make you jump through hoops to see the pics, don't give anything away.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Date of the infringement 19th Aug 2023

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 14th Sept 2023

3 Date received approx 20th Sept 2023

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Does not appear to

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes see previous post

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes see previous post

7 Who is the parking company? MET

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] SOuthgate Park Stansted

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Honda Z50M said:

I wonder if MET don't go to court as for them is high risk that may set a president and open a flood gate of them having to repay fines?

they are NOT FINES! you must get to read up and understand why. V.important

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's cut to the chase.

This car park is a scam.  Simple as that.  "Manage" a car park, but secretly make it two car parks, hide that from the motorist, then send out these demands for money when the motorist goes into the "wrong" fast food chain.

It's common sense that there is no point in correspondence with the scammers, they are not going to stop scamming.  The laughable appeals procedure is designed to get the naive to out the driver and admit to going into McDonald's.  Recently, after 50+ cases here of MET bottling court, they did issue a court claim against a Cagger who had unfortunately done precisely that.  Fortunately you don't seem to have done the same (although sending communications when you are in legal dispute and not keeping copies is a very bad idea).

They have sent their rubbish out far too late to establish keeper liability.

Ignore MET now, unless you get a Letter of Claim, then come back here.

Belt and braces, read this thread and do what this Cagger did and try to get the landowner to call their dogs off  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/455021-met-parking-services-southgate-park-stansted-left-southgate-park-premises-cancelled-by-euro-garagesstarbucks/#comments

 

 

.

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok quick search unable to find Alex Rayner email for starbucks, could anyone private message me with info please?

Found it so please ignore previous message.

Would it be worth posting my intended email here prior to sending to Ms Rayner?

Our intended email - time is of essence and want first contact to be correct so any advice if ok or changes appreciated.

 
Dear Ms, 
 
We are emailing you for your help in a matter involving MET parking at your Stansted branch located at Southgate Park (even though the actual postal address isn't Southgate Park)
 
I'm sure you are aware of the scam being run by MET parking where ONE car park has been invisibly divided in to two car parks causing MANY innocent visitors to Starbucks and the restaurant chain next door to be sent parking charges merely for stepping across the INVISIBLE threshold of the 'two' apparent car parks. 
 
My wife has been sent one of these penalties as her car was parked here for 39mins using the restaurant chain next door totally unware it was a separate car park.
 
So please would it be possible for you to contact the land owner and ask to have this absurd parking charge quashed as I'm sure Starbucks does not want to be associated with such a scam.
 
For reference the parking charge number is xxxxxxxxx
 
We are grateful and very appreciative of any help you can give regarding this matter.
 
Kindest regards
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine, except the mail should be from your wife in the first person.  Once you start "on behalf of" stuff it just gives an excuse to the other party not to cooperate. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NTK is out of time to transfer liability form the driver to the registered keeper - it ends there.

Do nothing, send nothing, speak to no one, wait for them to send you a letter before action and then come back here for a snotty letter.

If this went to court it would take seconds to bat it out as the NTK is out of time therefore NO KEEPER LIABILITY!

Oh and it's not a FINE or PENALTY CHARGE!!! Stop referring to it as one as you are convincing yourself it has credence.

Edited by Homer67
another typo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that still stand even though my wife prctically admitted we was there (no driver named or implied thankfully)?

 

Doyou mean out iof time because it was originally sent out beyond 14days?

Edited by Honda Z50M
Link to post
Share on other sites

By asking where 'we' had parked etc in trying to clarify what the charge was for?

 

But as mentioned she (registered keeper) was NOT driving and told MET in final appeal

Edited by Honda Z50M
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...