MET office parking charge at Stansted Starbucks / Mac Donalds

[Ivorbend]

Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Prior to returning a hire car at Stansted airport I stopped at Mac Donalds for a quick bite to eat. Th car park was really busy with cars and people and it was not easy to find parking.

I managed to find a slot, parked up and went to Mac Donalds for a quick snack, approximately 35 minutes.

About a month later I received a notice in the post saying that I was liable for a parking charge as I had left the car park.

The letter states clear signage was posted, which may be the case, but due the busy nature of the car park at the time I did not notice parking signs.

I contested the charge as I had been a customer at Mac Donlads and sent a receipt to prove my case.

I received a letter back denying the appeal as apparently I had parked in Starbucks car park and not Mac Donalds car park?

Attached are the letters I have received with regards this matter:

MET Parking.pdf MET Parking1.pdf

Many Thanks

[ostell]

Shame you responded to them, especially as you seem to have identified the driver. The notice would have been notice to hirer without a copy of the hire agreement etc and they would not have been able to claim from the hirer, only the unknown, then, driver. Check what you wrote to them to see if the driver is outed.

[Ivorbend]

It seems they have found that the registered keeper of the car car was a hire car company and sent the notice to them.

The car was hired through an agent for the company I work with. The hire car firm must have sent the notice to the agent who then forwarded the notice onto myself.

When I received the notice, I didn't think anything of it to send proof of my having been to one of the establishments on the site, my mistake obviously, and was then informed I was in the wrong car park.

I guess by me being honest it looks like it has cost me a hefty fine

[ostell]

So have you yet received a letter in your own name from MET? Or is the Notice to Hirere to someone else? This could be getting complicated.

With a hire car the PPC sent a Notice to Keeper to the registered keeper, the hire company. The hire company respond by naming the hirer (they can't name the driver as they do not know that information) and send copies of the hire agreement. The PPC then send a Notice to Hirer to the hirer and include the additional documents. The failure is usually that those additional documents are missing so the HIRER/KEEPER tells them to go away as they have failed POFA.

[Ivorbend]

The first letter I received had my name and the agents name in the address line.

Not sure if you can open files, but in my first part of the thread I have attached the original letter I received and then the response from MET Parking services after I appealed.(names and registrations blacked out)

From what i have seen on previous threads it is mentioned about being notified within 14 days? Is this the same timescale regards hire cars?

The "offence" was 13th July 18 yet the letter states the parking notice was issued 17th August 18 (35 days later) and the letter I received from them was dated 11th September 18.

[ostell]

Multiple timings are involved: no windscreen ticket then within 14 days, windscreen ticket then between day 28 and 56, rental then similar timing for the first PCN to the lease company then 21 days after the lease company respond till the Notice to Hirer. It's all in POFA.

So that Notice to Hirer on the first post is in no way compliant with the requirements of POFA to be able to hold the keeper/hirer liable for the actions of the driver. But what did you put in your appeal to them?

Here's a link to POFA, as a hirer you need to look in particular at section 14. So a lot of the required sections is not in the letter and no doubt you, or your agant, didn't receive the documents mentioned by 14 (2) (a)

Can't see the response from MET.

Edit your posts so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred, use "the driver......." etc. but the keeper received the letter

[Ivorbend]

Morning Ostell.

I would like to thank you for the assistance you are offering with my issue, it is highly appreciated. As you mention this seems like a complicated issue.

I understand that you are unable to see the links in my first post so I will try and put both the original letter and the response on this page.

I do not have a copy the correspondence for the appeal that I sent to them, it may have been a link on their website.

As mentioned previously, time scale may be in my favour?

[Amethyst]

Posted this before - have got the planning docs somewhere about too - here https://publicaccess.uttlesford.gov....AN-2009490.pdf
and
https://publicaccess.uttlesford.gov....an-1559266.jpg
( McD's and Starbucks are plots 4a and 4b)

[Amethyst]

This is a coincidence https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...southgate-park

Is this Britain’s most ridiculous parking fine?

Shoppers were charged £60 after parking outside Starbucks but going next door to McDonald’s in the same Stansted park



The Readmans are by no means alone. The Consumer Action Group, Legal Beagles and MoneySavingExpert websites have all featured a host of posts from other Southgate customers sent £60 demands for the same reason.

[Ivorbend]

Thanks Amethyst, confusing to say the least.

In a bit of a quandary as to what to do here, I believe £60 fine is unjust for half hours parking on a site that i did not realise belonged to starbucks and not MacDonalds.

If I appeal to POPLA and lose then MET will be chasing me for £100

[ostell]

If you appeal to POPLA with a POFA failure then it would be an almost automatic win. There are more failures on that notice you received so check what is on that notice to hire against POFA 14 and see what is missing and/or wrong. List these failure to POPLA

[Ivorbend]

Thanks Ostell

I have appealed to POPLA highlighting the dates as stated on the letter sent out to me, hopefully they will approve my appeal.

Thanks very much for the taking the time to assist with this matter, I appreciate it.

I will update once I hear back from POPLA

[ostell]

I would assume that POPLA appeal was lost as the notice was not out of time