MET CCTV PCN - Starbucks Closed - Southgate Park, Stansted Airport (346)

[BOE4321]

1 Date of the infringement 02nd February 2024

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

PDF scan done Redacted and Attached

3 Date received 20th May 2024

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Not that I can see

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes? (Photo of my car entering at 23:34 on the PCN itself, and leaving at 23:57 only visible on the appeals site, but I don't see how parking for 23 minutes is against the rules anyway?)

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] N/A

7 Who is the parking company? Met Parking Services

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted (346)

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA

Any advice is greatly appreciated. Many thanks.

 

2024-05-14 MET NTK incident 2024-02-02.pdf

[honeybee13]

Hello, welcome to CAG.

Thank you for supplying information early on, that's really helpful.

People should be along to advise later but in the meantime, please don't appeal. You could end up outing the driver on the day - please don't tell us who it was - and make life more complicated.

Best, HB

[dx100uk]

eh? this doesn't make sense....

CCTV capture pic from 02 feb

NTK 14 may..

thats not within 14 days for an ANPR capture

and certain outside 29-56 if they'd ever issued a notice to drive on the windscreen.

met trying to mug you here

have you the pcn?

dx

[BOE4321]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

The only correspondence I've had from them is attached to the post?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding. 

[honeybee13]

I don't think you are misunderstanding. It seems something may have gone missing.

HB

[FTMDave]

Firstly, thank you for filling in the sticky so quickly - we wish everyone who comes here would do that!

You're in the clear.  MET don't know who the driver was.  They can use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper if their bilge arrives within 14 days - they didn't send it out till 102 days after!!!

So sit on your hands.  MET will come out with threat after threat but ultimately will do nothing.

Have a read of other threads for this car park - we are having a tsunami of cases at the moment.

Be sure to come back here though if they ever send you a Letter of Claim.

 

[Nicky Boy]

Also, just for possible future reference,  go and see what other "photographic evidence" they have, and download it.

 

[FTMDave]

Yes, Nick is spot on.

Also, can you remember if Starbucks was closed when you were there?  I ask as I'm trying to work out what MET reckon you did wrong.

[Nicky Boy]

Dave,

You're probably thinking along the same lines as me.

The NTK says "The reason for issuing the charge notice is: Parking longer than allowed"

From memory, I think one of their stupid rules is that if 'Bucks is closed, you're not allowed to park at all.

[BOE4321]

Yes, I believe the Starbucks was closed at the time the car was parked there 

[FTMDave]

That explains it then.

MET's fantasy is that it's a pay car park.  You're only let off paying if you are a Starbucks customer which you can't be when Starbucks is closed. 

'Cos otherwise lots of people would abuse the car park facilities on the far edge of the Stansted Airport area in the middle of nowhere to ... admire the bushes?  Look at the cloudy sky?

The important thing is that we have around 140 cases for this site, and MET have only tried court seven times.  Even then, they had no intention of getting as far as a hearing, they were attempting to intimidate the motorists into paying, when the Caggers defended the cases MET discontinued.

[dx100uk]

looks like it now closed at 8pm everynight.

Starbucks - Stansted - Opening Times & Store Details

WWW.OPENINGTIMESIN.UK

---

Refer to this page for the specifics on Starbucks Stansted, including the hours of business, location info, product ranges and further significant...

 

[lookinforinfo]

If that was the reason then that is good news.

The whole reason that being able to charge £100 for breaching private car park rules is because the law Lords decided in a celebrated case that the rogues had a legitimate interest in keeping their car park spaces available for all motorists . {parking Eye v Beavis].

However when the business is closed then there is no legitimate interest in keeping spaces free so to charge £100 is a penalty.

As such any Court would automatically throw out the case when the penalty charge is accepted.

[BOE4321]

Hello.

I've received the attached letter and ignored it thinking it was like previous letters but after looking at it again, I'm wondering whether I should have come back here sooner? Thanks once again for the help.

 

trace dca letter (1).pdf

[dx100uk]

a dca is not a bailiff and have zero powers on any debt no matter what its type

await if/never a letter of  claim

dx