MET PCN (Starbucks / McDonalds) Stansted.

[sleslie86]

Hi all, I have just received a £100 fine as the keeper of the vehicle. I have not responded to it yet.

Please can anyone advise how to proceed as it appears that this is quite a regular issue with this site as a car parking scam.

It happened on the 5th March and the issue of notice on the 8th March, received in the post today.

many thanks!

[des8]

It is not a "fine", but an invoice called a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
Could you please post up a copy (both sides) but first removing identifying details but leaving in all times and dates?
Use a hosting site and post link here

[sleslie86]

Thanks des8

[sleslie86]

https://postimg.cc/56DLqwgz

[des8]

That is an interesting PCN

Just because you were in the park for 19 minutes doesn't mean you were parked there for 19 minutes.
Stating the car remained on site for longer than the period of parking paid for without stating the period paid for is "unsatisfactory"

If the car was there "without authorisation" as claimed, then that charge is not a contractual charge for parking but a penalty for trespass (and that is a whole different scenario and problem for MET)

Another point that struck me is that it seems the car parks in Southgate Park all offer a free 30 or 60 minutes (or at least that's how it seems to one who hasn't been there since the early 1960s)

Be helpful to know in which area your vehicle was parked (if it was parked) and what signage was there

The main problem for MET is that the land is part of the airport and so is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012.
This means they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper.
So do not ever identify the driver to MET (or on here in case they find this thread)

So I would suggest a polite letter along the lines of:

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

The site of the alleged parking incident is not relevant land as defined in sec3 of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012
You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc

first class post with free certificate of posting from a post office

[sleslie86]

Thanks des8
I dont know who the driver is anyway *♀️ and they (plural) wouldn't tell me even if I broached the subject with them (plural).

Researching online, this Southgate park appears to be one of the car parks that has attracted a lot of media attention in recent years for issuing spurious PCNs one is Starbucks, the other McDonalds. Southgate Park looks to be the Starbucks car park, further research on Google Street View shows 2-3 variations of signs! One sign suggest there is 60 minutes free parking for customers - this sign is on a lamp post which would have been illuminated around the time of the supposed contravention (22:00), on the left hand side there appears to be a much shorter signpost with a sign suggesting the carpark is for Starbucks customers only, this would not be illuminated as it’s not on a lampost; so I can only imagine whoever was driving wouldn't have seen a sign in the dark, and only taken note of the sign that was illuminated on entry. Whether they went to Starbucks or not, whether they actually parked there for 19mins...no idea and I won’t find out, but seems pretty obvious that this is a car park has a lack of consistency with its signage and chooses which ones to illuminate in the dark and which ones to coveniently not illuminate at night time, therefore I can see how this would dupe drivers in to thinking they're not contravening. I’d hazard a guess that MET are taking advantage of individuals “ego depletion” particularly late at night, luring drivers to take note of one illuminated sign on entry only, because they know drivers will not read the other variations of signage in the dark!

Besides, based on your appreciated advise, it's academic as the land is part of the airport and so is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper.

I will write said letter to them as advised, and not as an appeal either.

Thanks

[des8]

Whatever you write, they will not accept it as valid (after all they only want your money and don't act in any reasonable way) and an appeal to POPLA will be required

[sleslie86]

Good afternoon all, des8 as you v.kindly assisted before.
I’ve had a reply from the wonderful ppl at MET Parking and have posted their response below.

Would be very grateful if someone can assist nxt steps re reply or appeal to POPLA pls

KR,

SLESLIE86

[des8]

They have completely ignored the content of your letter, which was to be expected

So you can play the game of letter tennis and write pointing that out, and reiterating they cannot transfer liability for the unpaid charge from the unknown driver to you the keeper as the area is not relevant land as defined in PoFA2012

But also tell them that as the NTK of 8th March does not include the warning mandated in POFA2012 Sch 4 para 9 sec (f)
they no longer have the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid charges.

Accordingly you anticipate they will now cancel the charge.
However if they proceed to initiate court action, you will bring this correspondence to the court's attention and claim your costs because of their unreasonable behaviour in pursuing a claim that they know has no merit (CPR27.14 (2) (g)

I don't suppose it will make any difference, and I suspect these letters are never read!
If they don't accept you can then go for the POPLA appeal route as it is less stressful than court!

[sleslie86]

Thanks des8 how about this as a reply?:

To Whom It May Concern:

I am the registered keeper for the vehicle involved in the alleged parking charge noted above. I previously responded to your initial notice explaining the lawful reasons why you cannot pursue me for this charge. Despite the clear legal position I outlined, you have willfully disregarded my correspondence.

Specifically, the location is not "relevant land" as defined under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the Act"), preventing you from transferring liability to me as the keeper. Moreover, the Notice to Keeper dated 8th March 2023 patently fails to include the statutory warning required by Schedule 4, paragraph 9(f) of the Act, rendering it defective and unenforceable against a keeper.

By ignoring the fatal legal deficiencies I identified, you are acting unreasonably and conducting yourselves with a complete disregard for the law and the authorities which govern this area. I put you on notice that any further attempts to extract payment from me will be vigourously contested. Should you elect to initiate court proceedings, I will seek an award of costs against your company for having been forced to defend against a claim that is plainly devoid of any legal merit pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Accordingly, I hereby make one final demand for you to immediately cancel this charge and confirm the same in writing within 14 days. Failure to do so will leave me no recourse but to pursue all available legal remedies and have the matter adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.

I trust you will wisely reconsider your present unlawful course of conduct and withdraw your demands upon receipt of this letter before action.

Yours faithfully,

[sleslie86]

Good afternoon all / des8

I replied my last post as a letter to MET Parking, sent 1st Class signed for on Saturday. I go and track it this morning at view on RMs website that it has not been delivered?!? Recepient no longer at address!?! Odd, my 1st reply made its way there fine albeit that there was a redirection in place to Uttoxeter? Their letter is dated 5th April, yet I only received on the 11th April. They state overleaf to request the driver to pay the parking charge at the prevailing price of £60 with 14 days of today’s date. Not that I am going to pay it as the keeper, but its unscrupulous that they post 2nd class given people a reduced timeframe in which to reply and then pull stunts by handing over nonsense addresses in their correspondence that you can’t reply too. This company is God awful.

[des8]

Which address did you use and where did you source it?

[sleslie86]

Hi des8,

Met Parking Services Ltd, PO Box 64168, London, WC1A 9BE.

Plastered all over their correspondence. Sent my first response to exactly the same address (signed 1st class), it was redirected to Uttoxeter according to the tracker. This time, just says “Return to Sender” - Recipent not at address.

[des8]

Well in that case keep it when it is returned and do nothing.
It will not look good on them if you cannot communicate because they are using outdated headed paper

As they rarely react favourably to letters I wouldn't bother putting pen to paper.
If they react at all it is most likely to double down on their demands for your money.

When they realise you are not giving into their demands and you have a sound defence they might cease collection attempts. Sometimes this is after they have started court proceedings ... they leave it that late.
Sometimes they let it go to court, but don't turn up!

[sleslie86]

Thank you. des8
What shall I do in the meantime? Just wait until it arrives returned and do nothing? Personally I’d rather not wish to go to court as the registered keeper unless I must, especially over the matter of £60/£100 seems such a waste of court time. You mentioned going down the POPLA route in an earlier post, which I may do. Any advice here? I suppose I just keep my letters and responses together as evidence. The final nail in the coffin for them is that I tried to reply to the address stated on their letter and seems they have left the property meaning I can't continue communication with them so have had no choice to go via POPLA.