Another Three Bridges Ticket for Parking outside of Bay

Hi. I posted my appeal (worded as above with a few tweaks) and have now received the response from meteor refusing my appeal. I have read Ed Wood's thread as well as fuziduck's, and the Newbies thread.

This is Ed Wood's reply. Can you confirm that, with a bit of doctoring to prevent plagiarism (more or less), these words still apply?

Dear POPLA Assessor,
As the registered keeper of the vehicle above I am appealing against the parking charge above. Below are my grounds for non-liability and I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. Meteor have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents for the Train Operator. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that they are entitled or assigned any title/rights to demand money from me.


Meteor are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. Any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

2) No visual evidence of the alleged contravention provided: Beyond the assertion of the Meteor parking attendant, no evidence has been provided by Meteor (i.e. a photograph of my vehicle parked incorrectly in a signed no parking area) has been offered by Meteor to support the PCN they have issued. In this case the onus surely falls to Meteor to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the claimed breach of their terms and conditions took place. Payment was made and no contravention occurred.

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge did not fall under the category of a GPEOL on the following points:

i. The correct charge for the period in question, which was paid in full, was £5.80, with the permit valid until the following day. The parking contravention charge of £90 is out of all proportion to any potential loss on the part of Meteor and therefore does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

ii. There is no loss flowing from this parking event. This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge being claimed by Meteor is a punitive sum. The following refers: Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999': ''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''

Test of fairness:
''A term is unfair if...contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.

5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

It is wholly unreasonable to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a driver who has proved they paid the tariff in good faith. Meteor require strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to a persons detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

5) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and was not seen before parking - so there was no valid contract formed between Meteor and the driver.
There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.

The signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. There is no signage at the point of purchase, inside the railway station, and no signage at the entrance to the car park. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, such as when the driver walks away and past a sign (on the opposite side of the car park) when entering the station platform area, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Meteor have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.

6) Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability
Meteor have failed to fulfil the requirements necessary under statute (the POFA 2012) to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

Sites designated as Railways by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050. The driver has not been identified, therefore as registered keeper I cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If Meteor argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the Railway is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon Meteor to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.

I request that my appeal is upheld and that POPLA inform Meteor accordingly that their speculative invoice must be cancelled


Thank you for your attention
Yours faithfully,




Thank you for any assistance you can give.