MET Parking Services 'PCN' May 2013

fairdeal1

I have spent so many hours now reading all the threads on this forum to see if any of them are relevant to my case, and have read again the BPA code, and I don't see any stroung grounds for me to appeal successfully. I am not a lawyer, but reading through the reams of helpful information has made me wish I'd studied it at uni because I am quite honestly overwhelmed!

I originally thought I may be able to appeal on the grounds that I had not knowingly entered into a contract but I don't think this is any longer the case because there are a number of signs around the car park - not huge but there are there - stating that this is "a pay and display car park." The £100 penalty amount is shown at the bottom of the sign. I couldn't read it from a few feet but it is there - just checked today. Of course I did not sign a contract but they have done their bit in doing the signage so not sure I can credibly dispute that.

They offer ticket machines as well as RINGGO so I cannot say they made it impossible for me to pay (the fact the internet signal is dodgy in many rural car parks is probably to their benefit).

I could dispute their right to call the land theirs but it's well reported on the internet that Chiltern Rail has entered into an agreement with MET Parking services. So it's not likely to be untrue.

I have been issued with a POPLA code - in my appeal letter to the MET, I used the wording kindly advised by Hovite on this forum. So the phrase "the keeper denies any liability to your company" and then asking them for a POPLA code resulting in them sending me the form and a code.

So far it seems that MET have done everything by the book. I have no idea on what grounds I can appeal. I wish I had paid the £50 initial charge because I have spent so much time in reading all these threads I have already lost that in fee earning capacity (I am self employed - really I have spent hours on this).

Whilst I hate the idea that these scammers can get away with extortion, and someone needs to stop them for the greater good, frankly I can't see that they aren't breaking the law either.
Coupon Mad implied I wouldn't win any appeal based on disputing the amount as extortionate. So I cannot win.

I am depressed, annoyed, exhausted and frankly raging. At myself as much as I am at MET!

nigelbb

Of course you can appeal on the fact that sum requested is extortionate & raise many other points of appeal too. You have to realise that the appeal to POPLA has nothing to do with your particular case but is based on contract law, POFA, the BPA Ltd CoP etc

Here is a link to a successful appeal to POPLA on the grounds that the charge was punitive (is that near enough to extortionate for you?) http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62566151&postcount=166

The reason that issues like the contract between the PPC & the landowner are raised in POPLA appeals is that in most cases the motorist will win by default as the PPC will not produce the contract. Similarly with claims where the PPC demands damages for breach of contract these by law (& in the BPA Ltd CoP) must be a genuine pre-estimate of losses for that particular "parking crime" in that particular car park on that occasion. In a free car park losses are zero whereas in a pay & display car park losses can easily be calculated from the hourly rate for buying a pay & display ticket. The losses can never be £70 or £100 or £150 or whatever fantasy figure the PPC comes up with.

bazster

fairdeal1, please don't be so defeatist!

These points alone are sure-fire winners at PoPLA and perfectly applicable to your case:

- The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The fact that they have put up signs (we'll come back to them in a minute) threatening to charge you £100 doesn't mean they have the right to charge you £100. They can only charge you what your failure to pay has cost them, which is obviously nothing like £100, and if you require them to prove a £100 loss to PoPLA, they will fail. PoPLA upholds appeals on this ground time and time again.
- MET probably has a contract with the railway company, but we don't know what it says, and nor does PoPLA. If you dispute MET's right to issue charges on this land then they they will have to produce that contract - and parking companies are often very reluctant to do this, which results in PoPLA wins against them time and time again.
- You have said yourself that the signs are small and you couldn't read them from a few feet away. This is important. They can't bind you into a contract just by posting some small print, the signs have to be BIG and PROMINENT - in fact, so big and prominent that no normal person could possibly have overlooked them or failed to comprehend them. In particular, there needs to be a sign at the entrance that is both readable and completely unmissable as you are driving in i.e. whilst your car is still moving at a normal speed for entering the car park. If you've already parked your car without passing any completely unmissable signs then you did not enter into a contract - they can't impose a contract retrospectively with signs you can only read after you've parked and produced a magnifying glass or binoculars.

That's just a flavour of the sorts of things proven to win at PoPLA. If you've spent much time reading this forum you must surely have read these things over and over again, and it really shouldn't have taken you more than half-an-hour to cut-and-paste some of them into an appeal. Seems to me that you are over-analysing the thing and looking at it with so little confidence you are only seeing reasons to fail.

But having gone this far, why not just whack an appeal together, and post it up here for us to refine? Honestly, we do win, over and over.

And even if you decide against appealing, still don't pay: there is more chance of me winning the lottery than of anything happening beyond a few letters.

Coupon-mad

fairdeal1 wrote: »

I have spent so many hours now reading all the threads on this forum to see if any of them are relevant to my case, and have read again the BPA code, and I don't see any stroung grounds for me to appeal successfully. I am not a lawyer, but reading through the reams of helpful information has made me wish I'd studied it at uni because I am quite honestly overwhelmed!

I originally thought I may be able to appeal on the grounds that I had not knowingly entered into a contract but I don't think this is any longer the case because there are a number of signs around the car park - not huge but there are there - stating that this is "a pay and display car park." The £100 penalty amount is shown at the bottom of the sign. I couldn't read it from a few feet but it is there - just checked today. Of course I did not sign a contract but they have done their bit in doing the signage so not sure I can credibly dispute that.

They offer ticket machines as well as RINGGO so I cannot say they made it impossible for me to pay (the fact the internet signal is dodgy in many rural car parks is probably to their benefit).

I could dispute their right to call the land theirs but it's well reported on the internet that Chiltern Rail has entered into an agreement with MET Parking services. So it's not likely to be untrue.

I have been issued with a POPLA code - in my appeal letter to the MET, I used the wording kindly advised by Hovite on this forum. So the phrase "the keeper denies any liability to your company" and then asking them for a POPLA code resulting in them sending me the form and a code.

So far it seems that MET have done everything by the book. I have no idea on what grounds I can appeal. I wish I had paid the £50 initial charge because I have spent so much time in reading all these threads I have already lost that in fee earning capacity (I am self employed - really I have spent hours on this).

Whilst I hate the idea that these scammers can get away with extortion, and someone needs to stop them for the greater good, frankly I can't see that they aren't breaking the law either.
Coupon Mad implied I wouldn't win any appeal based on disputing the amount as extortionate. So I cannot win.

I am depressed, annoyed, exhausted and frankly raging. At myself as much as I am at MET!

You are joking, yes?

Or you work for MET (I suspect not but do you know what, it sounds like it now you say you reckon they've done it all right?!)

You will win at POPLA but not by saying 'it's extortionate', that's what I meant! Not sure what part of this was difficult to equate to your ticket?

How to win at POPLA: http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla/

That was one of the links I already gave you before; it's easy to see how you will win IMHO. Please also look at the wake-up call I gave a poster here in post #11, same wake-up call to you!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4645375

...then he came up with a short but good POPLA appeal in post #14.

and what about this one:

post #4 = http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79545&st=0&gopid=826768

and this recent Fistral beach one was a P&D car park with some signs up too, same as yours, see post #60 for a nice long POPLA appeal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4632455

Draft an appeal including the usual paragraphs you see repeated again and again. Copy & paste & change the name to MET; it DOES NOT take hours. Easy! Let's see it!

fairdeal1

It does take hours if you're not used to this stuff - believe me!



I'd appreciate your thoughts on the wording of this horribly long appeal to POPLA



Dear POPLA


I am not liable for the parking charge.


MET Parking Services state in their Notice to Keeper to me on (date) “the terms and conditions which those entering the site agree to be bound by, were clearly displayed in prominent places within the car park”. They assert to me that “the vehicle did not clearly display a valid parking ticket / voucher / permit and in accordance with the contract that was agreed to upon entering, these terms were violated and therefore the parking charge detailed above is immediately payable”


Firstly I dispute that I knowingly entered into a contract to pay £100 as a penalty charge for any reason upon entering the car park. I enclose a photograph of the sign nearest to where my car was parked (c30 feet) and I think POPLA will agree that the actual penalty charge is not visible unless read within a few inches. If POPLA is in any doubt 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 in that car park (particularly positioning and font size of the penalty) will not comply and that they 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).
In the two photographs of my car that MET have sent me, both with other cars in view, there are no visible parking signs. On revisiting the car park since then I see that there are signs as one enters and around the car park but even travelling at less than 5 miles an hour means one is not able to read anything but the largest of prints. The car park in question is in a train station where people are less likely to read the fine print when pressed for time to catch a train, no matter how well planned their journey to the train station – road delays can and do happen.


Secondly, the Notice I have received appears to show that MET Parking Services is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Act. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. The BPA Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance and MET Parking Services has failed to comply, in the wording of their Notice to Keeper, the firm indicates that it requires a payment to be made to them but do not say who this alleged contract I entered into is with. This may, in law, be MET Parking Services or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….” MET Parking Services have used no such words. The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, MET Parking Services has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

MET Parking Services have also not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, 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 request that POPLA check whether MET Parking Services have provided a full copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check whether that contract specifically enables them to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

Thirdly, I contend that MET Parking Services has failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

Fourthly, MET Parking Services have stated in their NTK that the Registered Keeper details have been obtained from the DVLA because “we have 'reasonable cause' to obtain and use this information in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1988, in order to trace the keeper of the vehicle that has not adhered to the parking terms and conditions”. So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. 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. These 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are unlawful attempts at penalties, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in the case with another Operator, Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011). MET Parking Services will not be able to refute this fact and I believe this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law as per The Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This law was drawn up to stop a trader from punishing a consumer financially as part of a contract. MET Parking Services are clearly attempting to enforce punitive charges on the keeper. The amount of £100 they are claiming has no bearing on their losses – or if it does, they have failed to provide me any evidence to that effect. The 24 hour car parking fee at this site is £6.70 and this parking 'charge' notice clearly exceeds the appropriate amount.

An additional factor I believe worthy of note although not part of this appeal is that for drivers in rural locations it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to get a mobile phone signal to pay by RINGGO. I believe that Operators could be more aware of this before issuing PCN’s. The staff at the rail station car park in question tell me that this particular Operator is “naturally enjoying the lack of a mobile signal when people are in a hurry to get a train”. I appreciate that most Operators offer the facility to pay by machine or RINGO, however when commuters are accustomed to paying by mobile, the day that the signal fails is often by unhappy coincidence the day they’ve experienced road delays in getting to the train station and nearly missing their train for work. However if the Operators were to check the RINGGO payment history of people whom they accuse of a breach of terms and conditions, they may well see a regular payment pattern which would surely indicate there is a) a customer who regularly pays to park and b) possibly an intermittent signal problem in that area. It would then be prudent to have very large signs cautioning drivers of the latter. There is only 1 train ticket machine at the station in question, and 1 ticket office, so there are always queues of worried people trying to get a train ticket if they are not season ticket holders. I have seen many such people running down to the train platform STILL trying to get a signal to pay for car parking before getting on the train because they did not have time after queuing to put a parking ticket in the car too. If they knew that failure to get a ticket to park before getting on a train would result in a penalty of £100 they may well choose to miss their train and get some coins to pay by machine!


In conclusion, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

Guys_Dad

Nice one! Well written.