Author Topic: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper  (Read 194 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

whydothistome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Received this in the post as the registered keeper. Is this real? I assume MET isn't the Metropolitan police right?

Google seems to show this exact situation happening alot with loads of people receiving it.


May have anonymised a bit too much can give exacts if needed later :


  • Date of Contravention: Day Zero - Jan 2025
  • Date of Issue of this Notice: 3 days later - Jan 2025
  • Received in post: 15 days from date of contravention - Jan 2025
  • Length of stay: <= 20 mins

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


mickR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 594
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
presume you (hopefully) haven't made contact with MET at all yet?

whydothistome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Not replied to them, only logged into the link to see the evidence they speak of which is just the same 2 pictures on the notice to keeper but in colour.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3508
  • Karma: +154/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
No, MET is an unregulated private parking company.

Easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The location is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote
I am the registered keeper. MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Stansted Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

whydothistome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks I've sent the appeal off. Says they'll respond within 28 days. Will update here with their response.

whydothistome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
So got this reply today asking for a receipt and saying it is private land.

They seem to think I was the driver with the constant references to "your" when I wasn't.

What's the next step just wait for their final decision?


b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3508
  • Karma: +154/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
The morons at MET can’t comprehend that it doesn’t matter if the land is “private”. The fact that the “private” land sits within the airport boundary and is therefore under statutory control, whether they like it or not.

Simply respond with the following:

Quote
Dear MET Parking Services,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number [Insert PCN Number]
Site: (346) Southgate Park

I refer to your recent letter, in which you attempt to claim that Southgate Park is "privately owned land" and somehow qualifies as "relevant land" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your argument demonstrates a staggering level of intellectual malnourishment and complete ignorance of statutory control principles.

To clarify for your benefit: Stansted Airport, including Southgate Park, is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws. As such, it is unequivocally not "relevant land" as defined in PoFA, regardless of whether the land is privately owned. You should already be aware of this fundamental limitation on your ability to hold the registered keeper liable.

Further, your demand for evidence of purchases or Starbucks use is both irrelevant and baseless. The burden of proof lies with MET Parking Services to demonstrate:

• That the terms of parking were clearly displayed and prominently visible;

• That a contract was formed with the driver (not the registered keeper);

• That any alleged breach occurred; and

• That you are pursuing the correct party.

As you are fully aware, no presumption or inference can be made that the registered keeper was the driver. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is not only flawed but also undermines your credibility. I will not engage in speculation regarding the driver’s identity, as I am under no legal obligation to do so.

You now have two options:

1. Cancel the Parking Charge Notice immediately; or

2. Issue a POPLA code without delay.

Should you continue this ridiculous pursuit of an unenforceable charge, I will look forward to exposing your lack of knowledge at POPLA or in court.

This is your final opportunity to resolve this matter sensibly. Kindly confirm cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice or provide a POPLA code within 14 days. Should I not receive a response, I will consider the matter closed.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain