MET Parking Stansted PCN

[natty5992]

I Received A PCN From MET parking however they have provided the notice 19days after the offence took place. I used the templates that i have seen in other threads on my appeal, and MET have responded with the following:


Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge. We note your request for us to cease communication with you however we are refusing this and should the charge remain unpaid, you may receive further correspondence as we believe we may process the data under the following legal bases:

Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and remain in the location. ·

Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of the location.

[natty5992]

Does anyone have some advise for what to include in the POPLA appeal to ensure that I am successful

[ULA]

tag charitynjw can you assist this OP please?

[charitynjw]

I Received A PCN From MET parking however they have provided the notice 19days after the offence took place. I used the templates that i have seen in other threads on my appeal, and MET have responded with the following:


Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge. We note your request for us to cease communication with you however we are refusing this and should the charge remain unpaid, you may receive further correspondence as we believe we may process the data under the following legal bases:

Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and remain in the location. ·

Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of the location.

Please post up a redacted copy of the Notice, front & rear.
Leave all times & dates visible.
Also a clear photo of the site sign t&c's.

[natty5992]

[natty5992]

I received the following message rejecting my appeal:

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge. We note your request for us to cease communication with you however we are refusing this and should the charge remain unpaid, you may receive
further correspondence as we believe we may process the data under the following legal bases:
· Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and
remain in the location.
· Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car
park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of
the location.
In this regard we will disclose all correspondence to our agents and advisers in seeking to recover the outstanding sum
due. We may also share data with the independent appeals service, POPLA, the BPA, and the courts if appropriate.

[natty5992]

Do I still have a leg to stand on if they haven't mentioned POFA in any responses.

Is it worth submitting a POPLA appeal

[charitynjw]

Do I still have a leg to stand on if they haven't mentioned POFA in any responses.

Is it worth submitting a POPLA appeal

If that sign (as the one posted) is as illegible in real life, you may have a defence.
Was there a windscreen pcn issued?
Is that postal Notice a reminder following a previous postal Notice?

[natty5992]

The sign is legible in real life.

However I was not served the notice until 20 days after the alleged infraction.

Do I have a case on the grounds of them failing to provide notice to the keeper within 14 days.

There was no wind screen notice.

I received a notice via the post on the 20th and the infraction occured on the the 28th of the month prior.

After appealing on the grounds that liability to pay the fine could not be transfered to me as I, the keeper of the vehicle was given this notice within 14 days.

My only concer is that the notice does not mention POFA.

Thier response to my appeal was to my appeal on the the grounds of POFA. Was:


We note your request for us to cease communication with you however we are refusing this and should the charge remain unpaid, you may receive further correspondence as we believe we may process the data under the following legal bases:
· Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and
remain in the location.

· Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car
park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of
the location.




I am wondering whether I have a legitimate case against the above claims made by MET Parking

[charitynjw]

The sign is legible in real life.
Maybe so, but if we can't read it, we can't comment on it.
However I was not served the notice until 20 days after the alleged infraction.
Do I have a case on the grounds of them failing to provide notice to the keeper within 14 days.
There was no wind screen notice.
Noted.
I received a notice via the post on the 20th and the infraction occured on the the 28th of the month prior.
Provided that the vehicle is privately owned (eg not hired/leased, or not a company vehicle etc), then it is out of time for keeper liability.
After appealing on the grounds that liability to pay the fine could not be transfered to me as I, the keeper of the vehicle was given this notice within 14 days.
My only concer is that the notice does not mention POFA.
Writ large on it is 'Notice to Keeper'.
Thier response to my appeal was to my appeal on the the grounds of POFA. Was:
We note your request for us to cease communication with you however we are refusing this and should the charge remain unpaid, you may receive further correspondence as we believe we may process the data under the following legal bases:
· Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and
remain in the location.
· Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car
park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of
the location.
I am wondering whether I have a legitimate case against the above claims made by MET Parking

Do you not find it odd that the rejection does not really address any appeal point(s) you've made?

[charitynjw]

The sign is legible in real life.
Maybe so, but if we can't read it, we can't comment on it.
However I was not served the notice until 20 days after the alleged infraction.
Do I have a case on the grounds of them failing to provide notice to the keeper within 14 days.
There was no wind screen notice.
Noted.
I received a notice via the post on the 20th and the infraction occured on the the 28th of the month prior.
Provided that the vehicle is privately owned (eg not hired/leased, or not a company vehicle etc), then it is out of time for keeper liability.
After appealing on the grounds that liability to pay the fine could not be transfered to me as I, the keeper of the vehicle was given this notice within 14 days.
My only concer is that the notice does not mention POFA.
Writ large on it is 'Notice to Keeper'.
Thier response to my appeal was to my appeal on the the grounds of POFA. Was:
We note your request for us to cease communication with you however we are refusing this and should the charge remain unpaid, you may receive further correspondence as we believe we may process the data under the following legal bases:
· Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and
remain in the location.
· Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car
park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of
the location.
I am wondering whether I have a legitimate case against the above claims made by MET Parking

Do you not find it odd that the rejection does not really address any appeal point(s) you've made?
You could add that the Notice doesn't specify a PERIOD of parking.
PoFA s9(2)(a)

[natty5992]

Do you know legal rebuttals, thier claims of: contract and legitimate interest?

[charitynjw]

Do you know legal rebuttals, thier claims of: contract and legitimate interest?

Are you asking, or are you offering to tell?

[natty5992]

I'm asking

[charitynjw]

I'm asking

I'm not sure I understand your question in that case.
As to the first part of your question, as previously stated, the sign you posted, aka a unilateral offer, is not legible.
The second part of your question depends to some extent on the first part