Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • p5x
    • By p5x 28th Oct 13, 5:53 PM
    • 368Posts
    • 69Thanks
    p5x
    Met parking services - advice please
    • #1
    • 28th Oct 13, 5:53 PM
    Met parking services - advice please 28th Oct 13 at 5:53 PM
    Having returned from holiday, I have received a “notice to keeper” letter from these lot with the following details:

    Date of incident: 8/9/13
    Date of issue of notice: 9/10/13
    “Contravention” : Leaving the site

    Now, having compared the details with this website, I can see a couple of problems with their letter. Firstly, they have failed to identify the creditor as far as I can see (can post a pic of the letter if it helps). Secondly, regarding the “Details of the discount for payment within 14 days” – is this meant to be 14 days from the PCN or 14 days from the “notice to keeper”?

    I then received a final notice letter 12 days later (still away on holiday at this point) saying that the charge is now overdue and that my right to appeal is no longer available:

    “Please note, as 28 days has passed from the date of our initial correspondence, the period for submitting a formal appeal has now expired, and therefore the right for further appeal to the independent appeals service, POPLA, will only be available in extenuating circumstances."
    I was under the impression that I needed to wait 28 days before appealing to the parking company according to this flowchart: and several posts on this forum (Eg- here)

    Also, they offer no evidence of me “leaving the site”, just a picture of my car

    Could someone kindly advise how I should proceed from here?
    Last edited by p5x; 28-10-2013 at 6:07 PM.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Oct 13, 5:59 PM
    • 51,673 Posts
    • 65,329 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 28th Oct 13, 5:59 PM
    • #2
    • 28th Oct 13, 5:59 PM
    Not sure what you mean about waiting 28 days? You only wait if you have got a windscreen PCN. Yours was a postal PCN so you respond to it with a challenge! You should have clicked on 'I have an ANPR letter' in the flowchart. You didn't have a ticket on the car.

    Date of incident: 8/9/13
    Date of issue of notice: 9/10/13

    Are those dates right, did you only get the NTK in OCTOBER? If so then 28 days have not passed! And they sent the postal PCN outside of 14 days!

    See the flowchart as per challenging it.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • p5x
    • By p5x 28th Oct 13, 6:06 PM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    • #3
    • 28th Oct 13, 6:06 PM
    • #3
    • 28th Oct 13, 6:06 PM
    sorry, just to clarify, I got a windscreen ticket on the day (8/9/13) but I was under the impression that I needed to wait until the notice to keeper arrived in the post. The NTK arrived on 9/10/13 followed by another "payment overdue" letter 12 days later stating I can no longer appeal the charge.

    This seems incorrect according to what I've read on these forums?
    • p5x
    • By p5x 28th Oct 13, 6:26 PM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    • #4
    • 28th Oct 13, 6:26 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Oct 13, 6:26 PM
    Just to reply to your question on the other thread:

    Have you complained to the BPA about the late NTK?
    According to the parking cowboys site:

    The Creditor or its agent must have made application to the DVLA for your name and address either
    • NOT EARLIER than 28 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver was issued); or
    • NOT LATER than 14 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver was not issued)
    So, looks like they've sent the NTK at the right time, no?
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 28th Oct 13, 9:45 PM
    • 10,250 Posts
    • 9,381 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #5
    • 28th Oct 13, 9:45 PM
    • #5
    • 28th Oct 13, 9:45 PM
    NtK arrived on time. You have 28 days to appeal to the PPC to get your POPLA code or a cancellation.

    I would appeal to the PPC saying that the driver disputes leaving the site and requires a map of the site and evidence of him doing so. Furthermore, if one of their operatives suspected that a driver was going to leave site, thereby causing the PPC to incur losses, then under English law it was his duty to inform the driver in order to mitigate these losses

    In addition, given the spate of GPEOL (look it up) defeats for PPCs at POPLA, you believe that their charges are not genuine pre-estimates of loss and that should the decide not to cancel your charge, then please supply you with a POPLA code. Advise them that you reserve the right to add further appeal points at POPLA after further research and that GPEOL will be one of these points.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Oct 13, 1:17 AM
    • 51,673 Posts
    • 65,329 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 29th Oct 13, 1:17 AM
    • #6
    • 29th Oct 13, 1:17 AM
    Yep you are in time to appeal as the registered keeper, referring to the receipt of the 9th October letter. Do not mention the PCN nor infer who was 'the driver'.

    Can you show us a photo or scan of the Notice to Keeper please?

    Both sides if there is writing on both sides? I suspect it's not compliant with POFA 2012 in one way or another, even though it was sent in time (I misunderstood your OP and thought you'd never had a windscreen ticket so I was working on the 14 days time limit, wrongly). I am asking to look at a few PPC NTKs now because almost every one we see is not compliant and we can build that into a POPLA appeal.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • p5x
    • By p5x 29th Oct 13, 10:05 AM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    • #7
    • 29th Oct 13, 10:05 AM
    • #7
    • 29th Oct 13, 10:05 AM
    Thanks for the advice so far. I've uploaded front and back of both of the letters I've received from them so far here

    I can see the following problems with the letters:
    1) Failure to identify creditor
    2) There doesn't appear to be a discount for payment within 14 days available on the NTK
    3) They've said that I can no longer appeal the charge and therefore POPLA is no longer available to me.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Oct 13, 4:50 PM
    • 51,673 Posts
    • 65,329 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 29th Oct 13, 4:50 PM
    • #8
    • 29th Oct 13, 4:50 PM
    They don't have to offer the keeper a discount, AFAIK.

    And they have offered POPLA in the NTK dated 9th October so challenge the PCN on that basis, replying to THAT letter. You can add that they have also failed to ID the creditor and have sent a liability Notice far too soon as you are still within your 28 days to challenge the PCN as the registered keeper.

    So start with:

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am the registered keeper of car reg xxxxxxx and am challenging the Notice dated 9th October. In the meantime you have also sent me an erroneous Liability Notice far too soon and I will be reporting MET to the BPA about this because I am still well within my 28 days to appeal the Notice to Keeper.

    Then say that the ticket represents no loss flowing from the driver's parking of the car that day and the Notice to Keeper fails to even make clear what the alleged contravention was supposed to be, which fails to meet the strict requirements of paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Say that they should cancel the ticket or send you a POPLA code.




    To report the early 'liability Notice' to the BPA, use this email address and word it as a complaint:

    david.m@britishparking.co.uk


    HTH
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • p5x
    • By p5x 29th Oct 13, 5:22 PM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    • #9
    • 29th Oct 13, 5:22 PM
    • #9
    • 29th Oct 13, 5:22 PM
    They don't have to offer the keeper a discount, AFAIK.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I was basing it on this although I don't know if it's a mandatory requirement:

    Details of the discount for payment within 14 days, The Discount should be at least 40% of the full charge under the BPA Code of Practice (applies to BPA Members only)
    And they have offered POPLA in the NTK dated 9th October so challenge the PCN on that basis, replying to THAT letter. You can add that they have also failed to ID the creditor and have sent a liability Notice far too soon as you are still within your 28 days to challenge the PCN as the registered keeper.

    snip

    HTH
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks, will get on with it now.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Oct 13, 12:24 AM
    • 51,673 Posts
    • 65,329 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The discount would have been on the original PCN - which you are not going to mention in your appeal as registered keeper!

    Remember that the very useful guidance in the Parking Cowboys link is generalising about 'Notice to Keeper letters' which could also be those sent by day 14, where there was never any windscreen PCN...in those cases there would be a discount on the NTK. But not in your case because a NTK which follows a windscreen PCN is a slightly different animal.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • p5x
    • By p5x 30th Oct 13, 10:57 AM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    I notice they've taken a picture of the vehicle with the PCN stuck on the windscreen, although this doesn't prove that the driver of the vehicle actually received it.

    Also, should I post the appeal to the PPC by recorded delivery or just get proof of posting? I don't feel like wasting any more money on this than I really need to but then I don't want them to claim they didn't receive the appeal.

    Having said that, none of their correspondence to me has been sent by recorded delivery.
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 30th Oct 13, 11:02 AM
    • 14,797 Posts
    • 13,463 Thanks
    bod1467
    Just send it 1st class and get (free) proof of posting. It is deemed received 2 days after posting. (Interpretations Act 1978).
    • p5x
    • By p5x 17th Nov 13, 10:17 PM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    It's POPLA time

    I see they've tried to bat off some of the issues I raised in their letters. Should this change my POPLA appeal at all?


    POPLA appeal re MET Parking ticket number ???

    Alleged infringement

    I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice number ????.

    I have researched the matter, taken legal advice and would like to point out the following points as my appeal against said charge:

    A) Genuine pre-estimate of loss
    B) Punitive charges and unfair terms
    C) No contractual authority to levy charges
    D) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage
    E) Non-compliant “Notice to Keeper” & lack of evidence provided of alleged infringement
    F) Misleading Liability Notice

    A) Genuine pre-estimate of loss
    The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

    "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

    There was no parking charge levied. On the date of the claimed loss it was not at full capacity. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can MET Parking lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance. In this case, MET Parking has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. Again, it is the Appellant's position that MET Parking has suffered no loss for the duration that the car was parked.

    In addition, the sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whatever the alleged breach of contract may be. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £50 on days 1 to 14, then £100 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by the Respondent.

    POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.


    B) Punitive charges and unfair terms

    The charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."

    Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

    I believe that the presented charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

    C) No contractual authority to levy charges

    MET Parking do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, MET Parking have not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question, I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract.

    I would request that POPLA please check whether MET Parking has provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice

    D) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage

    Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance to the shop.

    I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land, in terms of wording, position and clarity, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])

    E) Non-compliant “Notice to Keeper” & lack of evidence provided of alleged infringement

    Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to MET Parking, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be MET Parking or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
    In addition, the Notice to Keeper does not make clear what the alleged contravention was, how this was determined and furthermore it fails to provide sufficient evidence to decide whether the alleged contravention is valid.

    In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability under Paragraph 9 it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.

    F) Misleading Liability Notice

    It should also be noted that the registered keeper received an erroneous Liability Notice only 12 days after the Notice to Keeper, claiming that the period for submitting a formal appeal had expired, despite it being well within the 28 days to appeal the Notice to Keeper.

    On the basis of the above points I have raised, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed. In the event that POPLA is minded not to grant the appeal then, because the Respondent failed to provide any evidence of its entitlement to recover parking charges, it is requested that it be ordered that the Respondent be not allowed to recover any more than the originally claimed sum.
    Any amendments I should make?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Nov 13, 12:19 AM
    • 51,673 Posts
    • 65,329 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If that sheet in image 3 was included with the NTK then they have identified the creditor so you would need to reduce the points in your point E.

    I think you should make something of what Guys Dad said earlier:

    I would appeal to the PPC saying that the driver disputes leaving the site
    and requires a map of the site and evidence of him doing so. Furthermore, if one of their operatives suspected that a driver was going to leave site, thereby causing the PPC to incur losses, then under English law it was his duty to inform the driver in order to mitigate these losses.

    So you need a point about that, maybe:

    No clear map of the site boundary - no contract with driver formed
    It seems that MET are alleging the driver went off-site but have supplied no evidence of this, nor explained what constitutes 'off-site' and what their 'site survey' involved. And it has not been established whether they checked if, perhaps, a passenger was on site all along, and how this observation was made, by whom and how it was recorded as evidence. I put MET to strict proof of this 'site survey' and photographic evidence of neither a driver nor passenger of this car being on site; such evidence to include photographs of the contravention and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left. If no such sign nor evidence exists then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of evidence I deny that there was any contravention. I say there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in 'exchange' for going off site; there was no consideration, offer nor acceptance and no site boundary defined.

    The burden of proof shifts to MET to prove otherwise and to explain why their attendant (presumably) watched a driver walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary, yet made no attempt to stop/warn the driver nor even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises. MET have not shown how their 'site survey' established where the occupants of the car were. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

    District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?...there is a duty to mitigate the loss.' In this case now under POPLA appeal, I contend that MET have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-11-2013 at 12:52 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • p5x
    • By p5x 23rd Nov 13, 10:29 PM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    thanks, i've added that bit in as well now. I think i'm going to leave the bit about failing to identify the creditor on the NTK because that sheet didn't arrive with the original NTK (only with the rejected appeal letter they sent later).
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Nov 13, 10:44 PM
    • 51,673 Posts
    • 65,329 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I agree then, as it was NOT in the NTK, the NTK was not complaint.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • p5x
    • By p5x 4th Feb 14, 11:57 PM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    How accurate are POPLA with the hearing date they give?

    My case should have been heard about 3 weeks ago but I've not heard anything back from POPLA.

    Should I email them or is this normal?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th Feb 14, 12:41 AM
    • 16,895 Posts
    • 20,992 Thanks
    Redx
    How accurate are POPLA with the hearing date they give?

    My case should have been heard about 3 weeks ago but I've not heard anything back from POPLA.

    Should I email them or is this normal?
    Originally posted by p5x
    my relative didnt hear about their appeal so I advised them to email popla and found out it had been upheld weeks before the due date !!

    so I would email them
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 14, 1:02 AM
    • 51,673 Posts
    • 65,329 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    How accurate are POPLA with the hearing date they give?

    My case should have been heard about 3 weeks ago but I've not heard anything back from POPLA.

    Should I email them or is this normal?
    Originally posted by p5x




    If you have not been sent the PPC's evidence yet then email POPLA and say so, and ask if they've got their copy because you want to have the chance to look at it, as you are entitled to. Do not phone them. Email them.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • p5x
    • By p5x 5th Feb 14, 6:23 PM
    • 368 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    p5x
    By sheer coincidence (I think they must be reading this), I received the POPLA decision today:

    It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.

    The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

    Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.


    Thanks again to everyone for their help with this.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

534Posts Today

4,248Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I realised I forgot in my links earlier. 1. Help to Buy ISAs, how they work and best buys...? https://t.co/BSCNPeqiVF

  • RT @whatdawndid: Thanks to uncle @MartinSLewis I just received £200 back, just like that from the student loan company! Turns out that the?

  • RT @LaraLewington: Shocked and saddened by Cheggers news. Working with him on It?s A Knockout was my 1st job in telly when I was just 19. H?

  • Follow Martin