MET CCTV PNC - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

[Hikertrash]

1 Date of the infringement 14th April 2024

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 17th April 2024

[scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s

3 Date received 20th April 2024

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? ANPR photos of vehicle in and out (although as they were taken at night they don’t show much).

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

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 CM24 1PY

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Independent Appeals Service POPLA  - BPA Logo is on NTK

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here. N/A

Hi,

As keeper, I have received a PNC from MET Parking over the vehicle being parked in the infamous Stansted Starbucks/Mcdonald’s car park(s).

The vehicle was parked outside Starbucks (at night, when it was closed) and the driver went into Mcdonalds. However, the driver wishes to appeal due to the poor and misleading unlit signage, and believes that this PNC is unfair. I am sure you are aware of this company/car park, and I would appreciate any advice on this matter.

Kind regards

PNC 14.04.2024.pdf

[FTMDave]

Thanks for filling in the sticky and uploading the PCN straight away - we wish everyone who comes here would do that!

You refer to the site as "infamous".  You're right.  It's a scam site.  It's been exposed as a scam site in the national press and on national TV.

There's no point appealing.  You'd be appealing to the very people who set up the scam!

We have around 130 cases for this site.  In not one have MET dared pursue the Cagger all the way to a court hearing.

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN does not comply with the protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. because it is within the airport boundary and subject to Bye Laws. Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge so only the driver is now liable. As they do not know who was driving they are going to  struggle. so do not help them by appealing.

Also as Starbucks was closed by charging £100 that is a penalty since Met has no legitimate interest in pursuing the charge.. As it is a penalty the case would be thrown out should it get as far as Court. 

Met make a fortune from those who blindly pay so there is no need to risk Court.

[FTMDave]

Read post 10 here regarding contacting Starbucks  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466381-met-cctv-pcn-occupants-left-carpark-appealed-starbucks-closed-346-southgate-park-stansted-cm24-1py/

 

[FTMDave]

There have been developments today on Quaker6's thread re Starbucks/EuroGarages.

[Hikertrash]

Many thanks for the replies and advice!

I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site

Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,

I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).

Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd

Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX

Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX

Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX

Time: XX:XX - XX:XX

After a little research it appears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.

It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a dubious and predatory car park management company.

In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.

It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.

Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.

However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice as I understand you have kindly done in similar cases in the past.

Kind regards

[FTMDave]

Your letter is superb.

A couple of months ago it would have led to instant victory.

The problem is that since then there has been a tsunami of these cases and Starbucks have got fed up.

However. nothing ventured ...

I've made a little addition in red above so they know that you know that they have the power to intervene and have done so numerous times in the past.

 

[Nicky Boy]

2 hours ago, Hikertrash said:

Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.

However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Not sure whether this should be included?

It may get back to MET and tip them off to something you may use in a WS further down the line.

[dx100uk]

agreed.

and the letter needs spellchecking !!

done it now for you. 

dx

 

[Hikertrash]

Hi all,

Many thanks for the advice!

Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…

 

Starbucks UK Customer Care <[email protected]>

Hi xxxxxx,

We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store.

Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received.

If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to [email protected], who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions:

• Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies.

• The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site.

• If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours

• To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge.

• If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site.

• If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site

Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter. 

Kind Regards, 

Lora K 

Customer Care Team Leader

Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE

[FTMDave]

Sadly Starbucks have taken this line over the last couple of months after initially being cooperative.

Just sit on your hands now - but make sure to come back here if MET ever send a Letter of Claim.

We have over 130 cases for this site.  MET have only done court seven times.  Even then, they have never had the bottle to continue till the court hearing.

[Nicky Boy]

13 hours ago, Hikertrash said:

• Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies.

• The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site.

• If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours

• To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge.

• If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site.

• If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site

Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.

[Hikertrash]

Would it be worth while to appeal in order to obtain the POPLA reference?
I know the appeal to MET will not be successful but surely an appeal through POPLA could be?

The first clearly visible sign as you pull in to the car park states “McDonald’s Customers Only 60 minutes”

The next clearly visible sign is an almost identical sign outside Starbucks which states “60 minutes free stay for customers only”

There are other signs towards the rear of the car park (away from the outlets) that have the terms and conditions on them in very small print.

[FTMDave]

14 minutes ago, Hikertrash said:

I know the appeal to MET will not be successful but surely an appeal through POPLA could be?

Well, it's up to you.

Years & years & years ago the forum used to suggest appealing to POPLA, but then AFAIK POPLA's remit was changed and it became much more biased in favour of the PPCs.

One of the problems with taking that route is that the onus will fall on you to prove your appeal, while if you do nothing the onus is on MET to start legal action which experience teaches they are very, very reluctant to do.

If you go down the POPLA route I would think your ace would be insufficient signage.  Are you able to go back there and get photos of their rubbish, entrapping signs?