POPLA appeal help (Met Parking @ Gatwick MacDonalds)

PlzHelpNoob

Hi there, I was advised on how to appeal to MET who of course refused my appeal so I now need to write my appeal to POPLA.

I need some help on how to write it. I've had a look my self but there are so many threads on it I'm struggling to find the answer. If someone could point me in the right direction (maybe a case similar to mine) that would be amazing.

The short version of my story is this. Went to Gatwick Macdonalds drive through in my car. Ate the food in my car, got out and used one of the bins and left. At no point did I see the signs that they have up so was unaware of the time limit that MET gave me to eat my food. I got the PCN a few days later saying I overstayed by 24mins.

On the helpful advise from here I made an appeal to them. This is a summary of my points of why I was appealing and what they wrote back.

My points (paraphrased) in blue
Met reply (paraphrased) in red

The driver' entered into no contract because the driver wasn't aware they were in one.
The signs are clearly and prominently displayed all around the carpark.

Claiming the right to 'registered keeper liability' under the POFA when that right is simply not available on land covered by local Bylaws.
They did not address this.

Failing to include specific identification as to who the Creditor may be.
Items of disclosure reserved for court action.

I will also require a copy of your contract with the landowner which you are relying upon.
Items of disclosure reserved for court action.

Their reply sounds like a standard letter that they send out because people are getting wiser. They even said that the fees are in line with BPA but I didn't question that because I know that they can't charge more than £50-£100.

Please help me to fight these cowboys.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like you made a good first challenge and can build on that now to win. Read these examples:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

and to find other Airport bylaws POPLA appeal cases, search the parking forum for the keyword 'bylaws' or 'Airport' and find one where that point has been covered in a POPLA appeal if none of my examples cover that particular point.

Do show us your draft appeal for POPLA before submitting it, as we can help to fine tune it if you want.

PlzHelpNoob

It was a great first challenge...It was on your advice. Thank you. I'll have a look and get it done.

PlzHelpNoob

How is this for my 1st draft of my appeal letter? I wasn't sure if I should post here or start a new thread.




POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Reg: xxxxxxxxxx
PPC: MET Parking Services
PCN Ref: xxxxxxxxxx
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: xxxxxxxxxx
Date of PCN: xxxxxxxxxx

I was issued a PCN by MET Parking Services requiring payment of a charge of £100 for the alleged parking contravention at MacDonalds car park in Gatwick Airport. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper.
2. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.
3. Proprietary Interest.
4. Not relevant land for registered keeper liability.

No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be 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 Services, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be MET Parking Services or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2 NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. On the date of the claimed loss it was at 50% capacity and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can (PPC) 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.
The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 50% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.


3 Proprietary Interest

The appellant does not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give MET Parking Services any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, MET Parking Services lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.

The appellant believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to MET Parking Services. I put the operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the operator.



4 Not relevant land for registered keeper liability
I contend that this is not 'private land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability. It's an Airport road and this Airport is known to have Bylaws and the right to 'registered keeper liability' is simply not available on land covered by local Bylaws. Railway or Airport land is generally not 'relevant land' under the definition within the POFA. The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that this particular Airport Road is not covered by Statute or Byelaw and is 'relevant land' (as defined in Schedule 4 paragraph 3) because I believe it is not 'relevant land' at all.

Umkomaas

Nice and succinct (I'm starting to think that some appeals have become too 'leggy' and there's no need now we've started to sharpen up our thoughts on things).

First appeal point - for completeness needs to be numbered as a Heading (and capitalised as such - other Headings too). I'm also starting to feel that whenever PoFA 2012 is mentioned that we should bracket (THE LAW) after it, as it seems to me, PPCs and maybe even POPLA think that it is some 'optional extra' that isn't that important, especially as failure to comply with PoFA has been used many times in appeals yet without any adjudication on the point.

Appeal Point 2 GPEOL - you need POPLA to put the PPC to 'strict proof' by providing a breakdown of their GPEOL (which cannot include erection of signs, hi-viz jackets, membership of BPA etc).

Appeal Point 3 - ask that POPLA require the PPC to provide proof that they are paying rates to the local council for operating a car park from which income is derived (a new one that may start to take off - so a chance to throw in a cage-rattler to the PPCs, give them something serious to think about - them having to pay rates at each parking site).

Finally (more from a presentational point of view than anything else), where you are asking POPLA to put the PPC to 'strict proof', place it as a final paragraph in each of your appeal points and embolden it.

Excellent appeal OP.

HTH

bod1467

An excellent start.

One observation - you're switching between "I" and "the appellant" ... I'd suggest standardising on "the appellant". (i.e. keep everything in the 3rd party).

Point 3 - you should probably put something in there about "witness statements" not being acceptable. (Check other threads for appropriate wording).

Umkomaas

I'm also starting to feel that whenever PoFA 2012 is mentioned that we should bracket (THE LAW) after it, as it seems to me, PPCs and maybe even POPLA think that it is some 'optional extra' that isn't that important, especially as failure to comply with PoFA has been used many times in appeals yet without any adjudication on the point.

Sod's Law - no sooner than I mention that PoFA compliance has never been adjudicated on, Assessor Matthew Shaw allows the first appeal (as far as I'm aware) on a PoFA (non) compliance issue. See Bargepole's post in the POPLA Decisions' sticky.

It has also spurred the Parking Prankster into immediate action here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/important-popla-ruling-non-pofa-2012.html

Just as an observation, Matthew Shaw is one of the most experienced POPLA Adjudicators, maybe he's starting to get his head around some of the more subtle issues now?

PlzHelpNoob

Forgive me if I miss understand but I don't think the PoFA compliance applies to me because they sent me the notice within the 14day period. But this is great new for a lot of other motorist in cases where the operater does not comply with this....That's if I'm understanding it right.

Thank you both for the advise. I will amend as you have suggested and get it sent off.

Umkomaas

PlzHelpNoob wrote: »

Forgive me if I miss understand but I don't think the PoFA compliance applies to me because they sent me the notice within the 14day period. But this is great new for a lot of other motorist in cases where the operater does not comply with this....That's if I'm understanding it right.

Thank you both for the advise. I will amend as you have suggested and get it sent off.

There's much more to PoFA than dates on letters (admittedly lots of PPCs screw up on these). In fact in your opening appeal point you are quoting a PoFA non compliance issue - an absence of 'the creditor' in your NtK, hence my suggestion of (THE LAW) being placed after every PoFA 2012 quotation.