Author Topic: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks  (Read 4799 times)

0 Members and 211 Guests are viewing this topic.

Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« on: »
Hi All,

Parked at southgate after seeing there is 60 minutes for free, eneded up in McDonalds.
Did not go into Starbucks at all.
Time "over stayed" less than 30 minutes.

Can this be tackled? I know there are loads of threads out there about this but cases vary.
I have NOT contacted MET yet, only evidence is the 2 photos of car coming in and out.

Help? :)



Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #1 on: »
Thesis easily dealt with and no one pays a penny to the scammer at MET. However, before you get free advice, please repost the Notice to Keeper leaving ALL dates and times visible.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #2 on: »
Sure here it is -


Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #3 on: »
Thank you. For now, simply appeal only as the Keeper with the following:

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

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #4 on: »
Thanks for a quick reply, do we know how effective this is?
My biggest worry is to receive a letter of claim.

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #5 on: »
Thanks for a quick reply, do we know how effective this is?
That rather depends on what you mean by 'effective'. If you mean 'will they accept the appeal?', then the answer is 'probably not', because they don't make money from accepting appeals. But, if/when they reject, they must provide a POPLA code, and an appeal there yields a higher chance of success.


Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #6 on: »
Why would you worry about receiving an LoC?
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #7 on: »
Well, what happens after they reject the first appeal?

Regarding a LOC, I thought that could happen if the noticed is ignored or they reject all appeals? Doesn't this complicate the process? Do correct me if im wrong.

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #8 on: »
Well, what happens after they reject the first appeal?
What I outlined in reply #5:

if/when they reject, they must provide a POPLA code, and an appeal there yields a higher chance of success.

An abridged version of the process is:

  • Initial appeal. If accepted, charge cancelled. If rejected, step 2:
  • Appeal to POPLA. If accepted, charge cancelled. If rejected, step 3
  • Debt collector letters. These can be ignored, as debt collectors are powerless to do anything other than send letters
  • Letter of Claim, followed by a claim in the County Court

Most of these companies use legal companies that churn out tens of thousands of claims each year. The vast majority of people who receive a claim pay up. When someone actually defends their position, said legal firms often back down and discontinue. On the rare occasions they don't, the claims they issue are often shoddy, leaving them open to being struck out. Even if that doesn't happen, you would seem to have the makings of a defence anyway, for the reasons b789 has already pointed out with his suggested appeal.

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #9 on: »
Just to clarify for the OP and anyone else who gets to read this, here are the steps that should normally be taken when disputing a PCN issued by an unregulated private parking company. It outlines the four plans and why, if you follow the advice we provide, you cannot get a CCJ recored on your credit file.

Unfortunately, far too many people out there have absolutely no idea of the process that has to be gone through to actually have a CCJ recorded on their credit file with many, gullibly believing that just because they receive a letter from a useless Debt Recover Agent (DRA), a debt collector, that their credit record is somehow damaged.

If our advice is followed and in the extremely unlikely event that nothing goes your way and you lose a claim in the county court, you still cannot get a CCJ recorded unless you fail to pay the judgment amount in full within a calendar month. A CCJ, if paid in full within a month of judgment is completely expunged from the record as though it never existed.

So, for reference:

Quote
If you receive a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by an unregulated private parking company and dispute it, there are four main ways to fight it before it ever gets to the stage of a County Court Judgment (CCJ).

Plan A – Complain to the Landowner (Best Chance to Get It Cancelled Early)

Before doing anything else, try to get the landowner (or whoever hired the parking company) to cancel the charge. Supermarkets, shopping centres, and hospitals often have the power to cancel tickets if you were a genuine customer or had a valid reason. If this works, the problem ends here.

If that fails, move on to Plan B.

Plan B – Appeal to the Parking Company

You can send an appeal directly to the parking company, explaining why the charge is unfair. However, since these companies make money from issuing tickets, they usually reject appeals with a generic response. If they refuse to cancel, they must give you details of the next stage of appeal.

This leads to Plan C.

Plan C – Appeal to an 'Independent' Appeals Service

Most private parking companies belong to one of two trade bodies:

• BPA members use POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals)
• IPC members use IAS (Independent Appeals Service)

POPLA sometimes rules in favour of motorists, but IAS rarely does. These appeal services are supposedly meant to be neutral, but they often side with the parking company who are their paymasters and definitely anything but 'independent'. If they reject your appeal, their decisions are not binding on you and the parking company may start chasing you for payment.

At this point, they will send letters from debt collectors, but these companies are powerless – they cannot take you to court. They can only send you worthless bits of paper which you must ignore. The debt collectors are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver and are powerless to do anything but try and scare the gullible into paying out of ignorance and fear.

If the parking company is still saying that you owe them money, the final stage is Plan D.

Plan D – County Court (The Ultimate Dispute Resolution Service)

If the parking company is seriously greedy and really wants your money, they may send a Letter Before Claim (LBC), warning that they might take you to court. This is the first step in the litigation process. They hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay up at the first sign of litigation.

You have 30 days to explain why you dispute the charge. If you don’t respond or they disagree, they might file a county court claim against you. The vast majority of these disputes are handled by a small group of bulk litigation firms, all of them staffed by stunningly incompetent wannabe legals. However, most people are not aware of this and are intimidated enough to capitulate at this stage.

Those that capitulate and pay up at this stage of the process are wasting their money. They will be paying an amount that could not be legally claimed and would never be allowed if it went all the way to a hearing with a judge.

If/when they finally issue a court claim, you will receive an N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) which is the administrative centre for handling all county court claims before they are processed and then passed to the defendants local county court. You must respond within 14 days or request extra time by submitting an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). You can either:

• Defend the claim and argue why you don’t owe the money
• Settle the claim if you decide to pay
• Ignore it (not recommended – this can lead to an automatic default judgment [CCJ] against you)

If you defend the claim, there is another process that you have to go through before it ever gets to a hearing in front of a judge. The claimant has to acknowledge the claim and confirm whether they intend to proceed. You will then have to complete a Directions Questionnaire (DQ) which is for administrative purposes and lets the CNBC know which is your local county court and any dates you would not be available for a hearing in the next 6 months. You then have to "attend" a telephone mediation call which is not part of the judicial process as no judge or solicitor is involved but you simply offer £0 and it is over in minutes.

After this, the claim is assigned to your local count court (in a civil debt dispute where an individual is being sued by a company, the hearing is always assigned to the individuals local court, not the businesses) and a 'procedural judge' at the local county court will check the claim and either strike the claim out if there are any procedural errors made by the claimant or may order that the claimant submit further or more detailed Particulars of Claim (PoC)  or schedule a hearing date.

In the majority of cases that are not dismissed or struck out before the hearing date, the claimant will have to pay a hearing fee. It is at this stage that most of these claims are then discontinued by the claimant. They will have been hanging on up to this point hoping that the defendant will capitulate and pay up out of ignorance and fear.

In the unlikely event that the claim goes all the way to a hearing, you would have to submit a Witness Statement (WS) that basically fleshes out your defence. The claim is heard by the judge and a decision is made as to whether you owe the parking company a debt or not. Costs are fixed as this is the small claims track and the fake added charges that the parking companies have tried to claim for are not usually allowed.

In most cases where the claim is actually tried at a hearing and lost, the amount the judge awards is less than the original claim amount. A typical single PCN claim that is lost in court will amount to around £200 all in.

If you win, you pay nothing. If you lose, you must pay the amount ordered by the court. Even at this stage, if it ever got this far, you would still not have a "CCJ" on your credit file.

When Does a CCJ Get Recorded?

A CCJ (County Court Judgment) is only recorded on your credit file if:

• You lose in court, AND
• You don’t pay the full amount within 30 days.

If you pay the fill amount within 30 days, the CCJ is expunged, and it won’t affect or harm your credit. But if you ignore it or don't pay it in full within 30 days, the CCJ will be recorded and stay on your credit file for six years, making it almost impossible to get loans, mortgages, or even mobile phone contracts.

Summary

Plan A: Try to get the landowner to cancel the PCN.
Plan B: Appeal to the parking company (low chance of success).
Plan C: Appeal to an ‘independent’ appeals service (often biased).
Plan D: If all else fails, the parking company might take you to court.

A CCJ only happens if you go through the process and lose in court AND don’t pay it in full within 30 days.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #10 on: »
Thanks all, i have now appealed. Will update you when i have a reply!

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #11 on: »
Got this back today, bit blunt compared to other replies I've seen on the forums...


Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #12 on: »
Around the last week in February, this was a POPLA decision that MET were unable to prove that the location is not on land under statutory control:

Quote
Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being longer than the period of parking that had bene paid for or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that:

• The parking operator can not pursue the keeper of the vehicle as it relates to a car park within the boundary of statutory land.
• They are unable to use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it is not relevant land.
• The car park sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport so it is under statutory control, under Airports Act 1986, even if it is a private car park.
• They have evidence of the land being within the airport boundary from the UK Government and Stansted Airport.

It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments regarding the landowner contract.

The appellant has provided a boundary image of Stansted Airport showing the location of the car park within the boundary as evidence to support their appeal.

The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim.

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

The appellant has provided a map suggesting a boundary of Stansted airport, and the area within which the vehicle was parked is within the boundary. The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, however no evidence has been provided by the parking operator to show the car park is located on relevant land.

I am not satisfied that the operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided by the appellant is incorrect.

That is not to say the site is certainly located within the airport boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence before me.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Here is the map I provided to evidence that the location is within the Stansted airport boundary and therefore it is land under statutory control, irrespective of what MET would have you believe:



So, if you want to respond to that letter, I suggest you tell them to refer the map to a responsible adult who is not suffering from intellectual malnourishment and can comprehend the fact that the location is indeed at “the airport” and so Keeper liability cannot apply.

Also, remind them that they are in breach of the PPSCoP because their NtKs falsely state that they are relying on PoFA when it cannot do so, in breach of section 8.1.1(d). A breach of the PPSCoP means that they have invalidated their KADOE contract with the DVLA and are also in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2025, 01:53:18 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #13 on: »
Thanks, i will draft something and put it here beforehand to get an opinion. Unless someone already has something i can adjust?


Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
« Reply #14 on: »
Something along those lines?


The Appeals Department
Parking Charge Notice XXXX


As per my previous letter,  MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control and MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land'.
Below is a Stansted Airport issued map which clearly states that Starbucks is located within the airport boundary making it land under statutory control.
In addition, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) falsely states reliance on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) when it cannot do so, putting you in breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP). This breach invalidates your KADOE contract with the DVLA, meaning you have obtained my data unlawfully, in direct violation of the Data Protection Act 2018. I request that you immediately cancel this charge.