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
    • Bill21
    • By Bill21 7th Nov 17, 8:39 AM
    • 6Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Bill21
    MET parking appeal
    • #1
    • 7th Nov 17, 8:39 AM
    MET parking appeal 7th Nov 17 at 8:39 AM
    Hi all,

    I was hoping if I could get some specific advice please, having read the Newbie post.

    The driver was parked in a private park operated by MET and paid them the initial 4hr fee, however was 30 mins late to return due to the little one not feeling well. The keeper ecently got a letter through the post asking to pay a fine, so no windscreen warning.

    I was wondering if The keeper has a case for appeal and what template could be used?

    Thanks,
    Bill
    Last edited by Bill21; 11-11-2017 at 2:31 PM.
Page 1
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 7th Nov 17, 8:50 AM
    • 334 Posts
    • 334 Thanks
    claxtome
    • #2
    • 7th Nov 17, 8:50 AM
    • #2
    • 7th Nov 17, 8:50 AM
    OK a few things:
    It is not a fine it is an invoice.
    The first correspondence received through the post is your Notice to Keeper (and PCN).
    It is always worth appealing particularly as MET are BPA members.

    I suggest you re-read the NEWBIES post with this knowledge and send the blue appeal letter WITHOUT any changes which has the sole aim of getting a POPLA code.

    Important: Edit your opening post so it refers to driver and keeper not 'I'.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Nov 17, 9:11 AM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,670 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 7th Nov 17, 9:11 AM
    • #3
    • 7th Nov 17, 9:11 AM
    Also, reading through the advice that the contract is with the driver, what would happen if I nominated as driver a relative from abroad? Would they just not bother?
    Not a great idea - unless you’re confident you’ll be able to convince a judge that you're telling the truth, should this get to court!

    I’d be reading up on ‘Perverting the Course of Justice’ before trying to pull that stunt! Can carry jail time - just ask Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce.

    Best bet is to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 (only post #1 at this stage).
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Bill21
    • By Bill21 7th Nov 17, 12:10 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Bill21
    • #4
    • 7th Nov 17, 12:10 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Nov 17, 12:10 PM
    Thank you both for the quick replies.

    I was confused a bit by the blue letter because of this:

    “Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause”

    As they have already obtained the keeper's details claiming in their letter they have reasonable cause.

    So keeper would sent them this, expecting they will refuse and go on a POPLA case, and then need to find a draft that is relevant to the case, if it exists in this site. It is a bit daunting but it is also the principle of not paying £100 when they’ve already paid them once and they are looking to exploit a small delay for a non proportional bill.

    I did find in Google a company that claims they can handle such appeals for £25 with a money back guarantee. Don’t know if anyone has experience of those and if they could be trusted or if it’s moving from one cowboy firm to another?

    Many thanks
    Last edited by Bill21; 11-11-2017 at 2:33 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Nov 17, 1:44 PM
    • 1,159 Posts
    • 1,191 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 7th Nov 17, 1:44 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Nov 17, 1:44 PM
    Should you HAVE obtained. Easy addition.

    Dont do appeals companies. Use the free advice on here.
    • Bill21
    • By Bill21 14th Nov 17, 4:17 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Bill21
    • #6
    • 14th Nov 17, 4:17 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Nov 17, 4:17 PM
    Hi all,


    have gone through the blue coloured letter as registered keeper of the vehicle and now have a POPLA code.


    Now for the harder part, as losing at POPLA could leave me with £100 bill to pay. I have gone through the guidance in the relevant post in the Newbie chain, to see which arguments would be relevant for my appeal and maybe win the case. Also, have seen some of the rejected cases, which was a bit disheartening.


    I first tried to check if I have a Golden Ticket, but looks like MET have raised their game. While their notice does not explicitly state POFA 2012 at the back or front of the letter, they have this paragraph:


    "if after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (I) the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full and (ii) we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver we will have the right to recover from you, so much that parking charge as remains unpaid. This notice is deemed to have been given to you on the second working day after the date of sending it".


    So on the face of it, they seem to comply with POFA 2012 but I'm no expert.


    They contested the sign clarity argument and the photos show the vehicle parked close to a sign, so the driver should have seen it. The £100 is with large enough letters, the rest needs to be read from close. So, again not sure if there will be an argument there.


    I would use the grace period but 30 mins seems to be well above that and an unlikely winner.


    So all I have to use is the landowner authority argument and another I have seen in the site, relating the date/time in the photos being actually genuine and not modified using technology.


    Would the more experienced people here be able to advise if this is likely to be a winner, or anything else that could be used in this case?


    Thanks
    • KS27
    • By KS27 14th Nov 17, 4:57 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    KS27
    • #7
    • 14th Nov 17, 4:57 PM
    NEWBIES thread
    • #7
    • 14th Nov 17, 4:57 PM
    Please can you advise me how to access this thread. used the search engine but just gives me references to it not the actual FAQ to get templates
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Nov 17, 5:09 PM
    • 4,747 Posts
    • 3,089 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 14th Nov 17, 5:09 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Nov 17, 5:09 PM
    Now for the harder part, as losing at POPLA could leave me with £100 bill to pay.
    Originally posted by Bill21
    How did you get to that conclusion?

    A PoPLA decision is binding on the car parking company.
    It is not binding on the motorist.

    So, if you lose at PoPLA, you still pay nothing.
    You pay nothing until instructed to do so by a court.

    Anyway, what is all this talk about losing at PoPLA?

    Start constructing your PoPLA appeal using the readily available template points provided in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky/pinned thread.
    .
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Nov 17, 5:12 PM
    • 4,747 Posts
    • 3,089 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 14th Nov 17, 5:12 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Nov 17, 5:12 PM
    Please can you advise me how to access this thread. used the search engine but just gives me references to it not the actual FAQ to get templates
    Originally posted by KS27
    Go back to the thread index and look for the thread entitled:

    **NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? OLD OR NEW? **READ THESE FAQS FIRST!** Thankyou!

    It is currently the second thread in the thread index list.

    If you have further questions after you have read it, then please start a new thread.
    .
    • Bill21
    • By Bill21 14th Nov 17, 9:52 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Bill21
    Hi KeithP

    To be honest, Iíd rather avoid courts altogether. I have read post #3 and also a few of the successful (and unsuccessful) appeals to POPLA posted here. What I could do with some help is the proposed strategy for the appeal. I can use templates already here but would appreciate someone more experienced offering their view, if I indeed have the Golden Ticket to fall back on, or not as I suspect.

    If I donít, then what would my best next bet be, rather than throwing a set of the points here, hoping that one will stick?

    Thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Nov 17, 10:01 PM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,670 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    To be honest, I’d rather avoid courts altogether.
    ‘MET’ and ‘Court’ never appear in the same sentence. What makes you think your case is so special that they will pop their cherry on you?

    http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_Parking_Services.html

    but would appreciate someone more experienced offering their view
    I’m not sure what I’d make of this in your shoes Keith?

    What are your criteria for ‘more experienced’ @OP?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Nov 17, 10:05 PM
    • 4,747 Posts
    • 3,089 Thanks
    KeithP
    Have you seen the likelyhood of your case getting to court?

    Since the beginning of 2015, MET have issued over 200,000 tickets.

    Have a look at this page to see how many court cases there have been:

    If yours gets to court, rush out and buy a lottery ticket.
    .
    • Bill21
    • By Bill21 15th Nov 17, 12:33 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Bill21
    Thanks guys, I meant no disrespect when I write 'more experienced', it is meant to mean 'more experienced than me', so my criteria is the people who have been in these forums for long and have been giving good advice to newbies like me.


    To go back to the case, the link from Keith is very encouraging, after a response to my appeal that felt threatening.


    So, what I aim to do is draft a POPLA letter this weekend basing it on:
    1) 2012 POFA (although I still fear this will fall flat as I don't think I have the golden ticket)
    2) Signs on site (driver made this difficult for me as keeper)
    3) Landowner authority
    4) Legitimacy of the timestamps on photographic evidence


    Is there anything else you can suggest please? If that's ok, I will get a draft here for comments?
    • Bill21
    • By Bill21 26th Nov 17, 11:28 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Bill21
    Hi all. I've now prepared my case for POPLA as per the advice here. Would someone be willing to review and comment please? Apologies, it is quite long but tried to use input from previously successful cases. I'm not convinced about no2, per my suggestion previously but have added anyway.

    Thanks


    POPLA Ref:xxxxxx
    MET Parking Services PCN no: xxxxxxxx

    A Notice to Registered Keeper was issued on xxxx and received by me,
    xxxxxxxxxx, the registered keeper of the vehicle Reg: xxxxx for the alleged contravention of ‘Breach of terms and conditions’’ atxxxxxxxxxx. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

    1) MET Parking has deliberately chosen not to use the POFA 2012 and has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge (ref: POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).
    2) Non-compliance with various requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
    3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    5) Amount demanded is a penalty
    6) Photo evidence appears doctored.

    1) MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA has not shown that the individual
    who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case
    Carly Law 6061796103)

    MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA and make no mention of such or the transfer of liability to the keeper is specifically under POFA 2012, by clearly stating it in the Notice to Keeper I have received.
    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4 which they have not in this case. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is
    the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied
    with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which in this case the operator is not explicitly doing or referring to in their PCN.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

    2) Non-compliance with various requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

    a) If MET Parking Services did wish to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, which they have not, the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012; paragraph 8 states specifically “The notice must—specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” The notice to keeper that I have received does not state the period of parking to which the notice relates, only the time the PCN was issued.
    Due to the omission of this detail the notice to keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 paragraph 6 of POFA 2012 and means that myself, the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
    b) MET Parking does not comply with requirement set out in paragraph 9(2)(f) which
    states:
    The notice must— warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
    (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
    (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for
    service for the driver,
    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    MET Parking blatantly fails to clearly articulate the 28 days timeframe whereas it must have set out clearly in the Notice to Registered Keeper when and in what circumstances MET Parking would have the right to recover from the keeper the amount that remains unpaid. Such omission invalidates the Notice to Registered Keeper that I received.

    3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
    compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier’s 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
    spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
    2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering’ and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are
    unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    Images 1 & 2: Evidence of signage as would be viewed from drivers or passenger position, as taken by the operator themselves




    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver could read a legible sign which clearly demonstrated the full terms of an delay in exiting the parking. In this case, where the driver had purchased a valid ticket, it cannot be assumed they were aware of the terms and conditions relating to them vacating the parking site, as the operator is stating in their PCN.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space […] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself. The letters seem to be no larger than .36 font size going by this guide:
    www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here: signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:
    ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall’'. ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of less than half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms. Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:
    bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking. So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and believe that the photographic evidence I have submitted here supports this view. Mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    5) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not the clarity that they would be entering into a contract with specific duration, what grace period is given post the duration and what the additional charge would be once the paid period expires. In this occasion, the Operator are claiming a charge that is tenfold their rate for the period of 30 minutes that the driver allegedly parked, over their original paid ticket. This is clearly punitive and contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015, not clearly demonstrated in the terms and conditions of the signage and a totally exploitative profiteering practice of any driver’s situation.

    6) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps. I am in the position to know that the driver had paid for a valid session on the day in question, a fact MET Parking Services themselves recognise in the rejection of my initial appeal to them. Their argument is that the session had expired when they issued their PCN and use photographic ‘evidence’ to prove their case. However, by close examination of the photographs, the details are added as an overlay on-top of the photos in the bottom left hand corner. Images 1 & 2 are a demonstration my assertion. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add this yellow text with authentic looking metadata. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged. I would challenge MET Parking Services to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.) and not taken from an individual with a mobile device on which time can be set at will, or timestamped after processing with photo-editing software. I would also challenge MET Parking Services that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of photographs, as the date stamps have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).
    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 27th Nov 17, 8:42 AM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,670 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Looks ok to me on a very cursory skim.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Dec 17, 1:25 PM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,670 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    You’ve posted this on 3 unconnected threads. Please stop.

    You need to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1, then if you have any subsequent queries, post a new thread of your own.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
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

334Posts Today

2,304Users online

Martin's Twitter