MET ANPR PCN - parked whilst starbucks was closed - appealed - (346) Southgate Park, Stansted. CM24 IPY

[Jacob04]

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!

[dx100uk]

next time never ever ever appeal!!

please complete this:

 

and scan up every letter in/out (bothsies) to ONE MASS PDF in date order.

read our upload guide carefully. do not use a pdf editor to do redactions.

dx 

[Jacob04]

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

[dx100uk]

read what is says to do eh?

 

[Jacob04]

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

[dx100uk]

nothing more you can do.

see if they are brave enough to issue a letter of claim

dx

 

[Jacob04]

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?

Edited January 3 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[FTMDave]

There is confusion because your approach to this is very different from what the forum normally recommends.

Can you be cleaner about what stage you are at?

Am I right in thinking you have appealed to POPLA and both you & MET have sent evidence?

[Jacob04]

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

Edited January 3 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[FTMDave]

OK, the forum's logic is this.

MET didn't know who was driving so they had no-one to sue.  They knew you were the registered keeper of the vehicle but that's not the same thing.

There is a law called Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which allows them to transfer liability to the keeper, after following a legal procedure, which almost always they never bother to follow.

That means they have no-one to sue.

So the forum recommends to just ignore the appeal procedure which is hopelessly biased in favour of the parking companies, given MET can't do anything anyway.

We have so many threads on this car park that we've lost count, but in years & years & years MET never took anyone to court (although they are currently testing the water with a couple of court cases)

But in your appeal you have outed yourself as the driver - which means that if POPLA reject your appeal they now do have someone to sue.

Given you've appealed to POPLA, and already thrown away your POFA 2012 protection, then you might as well go through with your appeal.  Concentrate on the signage being pathetic.

Don't hold out much hope though.  While not as bad as the IAS (the rival trade association appeals body), POPLA is very biased, they refuse to accept legal decisions by the courts and will only go on what rules are made up by the private parking companies.

[Nicky Boy]

11 hours ago, FTMDave said:

Concentrate on the signage being pathetic.

Something to possibly mention is that the signage says "60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers ONLY".

You were a Southgate Park customer.

Starbucks is not mentioned anywhere on their signage.

In fact, I would say that if you actually went into Starbucks, you would be in contravention of their signage, because you would be leaving Southgate Park.

Read the signage literally... That is what forms the "contract" and if a contract can be interpreted in more than one way, the consumer can choose whichever meaning they wish.

Of course, you could take our usual advice and ignore anything except a letter of claim, then use the above in a witness statement for the court.