MET Parking Services - bad picture

Coupon-mad

So now just choose your draft from the 'How to win at POPLA' link in the NEWBIES FAQs thread.

Burlington

Dear all,

How does this look?

As the registered keeper of the vehicle,registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking ‘charge’issued by MET Parking Services on xx/xx/xxxx.

My appeal is based on the following grounds.

1. Unclear and non-complaintsignage.

2. Lack of photographic evidenceand ANPR.

3. Contract with the landowner –not compliant with the BPA code of practice and no legal status to offerparking or enforce tickets.

4. BPA code of practice breach –no ‘creditor’ identified.

5. No breach of contract and nogenuine pre-estimate of loss.



Unclear andnon-compliant signage.

Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, Icontend that the signs and any core parking terms that MET Parking Services arerelying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and thatthe signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practicerequirements. I request that POPLA checkthe Operator’s evidence and signage map and photos. I would contend that the signs (wording,position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and anyconsequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd vs MartinCutts, 2011).



Lack of photographicevidence and ANPR

MET Parking Services are relying on two pictures of a vehicleentering and exiting the site. The firstpicture shows a car and number plate of the car, which I am the registeredkeeper of, entering the site. The secondpicture shows a car but with no number plate visible, hence it cannot bedemonstrated that this is the same car exiting the site. Hence there is no evidence to indicate thatmy vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit the Operator is relyingupon, and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by theirevidence. MET Parking Services do showseparately an image of the number plate of my vehicle, but they have not demonstratedthat it relates to the image of the vehicle exiting the site.



MET Parking Services have failed to show me, as registered owner ofthe vehicle, any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with therequirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR). I would request that POPLA consider thatparticular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operatorhas shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance withsection 21 of the Code.



Contract with landowner

In their Notice and in the rejection letter MET Parking Services has not provided me, asregistered keeper of the vehicle, with any evidence that it is lawfullyentitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have anyinterest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has thenecessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicleparking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidencedin the Higher Court findings in VCS vs HMRC 2012). I therefore put MET Parking Services tostrict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location. Accordingly, the Respondent should be requiredto provide a copy (to both POPLA and myself) of:



1. A full copy of the actualcontemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement / contract with the landowner/ occupier (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists).

2. Evidence of the land ownershipof the party with whom the Respondent has contracted.

Furthermore, I would request that POPLAchecks that the contract specifically enables this Operator to pursue parkingcharges in the courts. Finally I wouldrequest that POPLA verifies whether that contract is compliant with therequirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.



BPA code of practicebreach – no ‘creditor’ identified

The Notice I have received, as the registered owner of the vehicle,makes it clear that MET Parking Services is relying on Schedule 4 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such,there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to takeadvantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeperin respect of a driver’s alleged ‘charge’. MET Parking Services has failed to comply in the wording of their Noticeto Keeper since they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’. This may, in law, be MET Parking Services orindeed some other party. The Actrequires a Notice to Keeper to have the words to the effect that ‘The Creditoris.....”.



The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does notindicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The owner of the vehicle is entitled to knowthe identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the‘Creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, MET Parking Services has failed to provideany evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an allegedbreach of contractual terms and conditions.



No breach of contractand no genuine pre-estimate of loss

MET Parking Services state in their letter of rejection that theparking charge represents a claim for liquidated damages. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuinepre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon lossfollowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue.



As the entirety of theparking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to beenforceable, as registered owner of the vehicle I require MET Parking Servicesto submit a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated in this particularcar park and for this particular ‘contravention’. I would contend that the £100 charge far exceedsany loss to the landowner, who would have received £0 from any vehicles parked,as the car park is free to use. Furthermore, all of these costs must represent a loss resulting from thealleged breach at the time. The parking charges demanded by the Operatoras “genuine loss” must be those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge,and cannot include speculative future costs relating to internal appealprocedures or mounting a POPLA defence. Finally,I would submit that MET Parking Services cannot lawfully include their operationalday to day running costs (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement orsign erection) in any ‘loss’ claimed. For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parkingenforcement (e.g. erecting signage, wages, office costs) would still have beenthe same and therefore may not be included.



Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach ofcontract has been alleged for a free car park, this “charge” can only be anunlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. Thisis similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel ParkingServices v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review,February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) andUKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoiceor request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in anattempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police andCouncil Wardens issue.


Based on the above arguments, I therefore respectfully request that my appealis upheld and the charge dismissed.

Redx

the formatting looks poor there, I would suggest you copy and paste it into notepad before copying and pasting from notepad onto here , to save any formatting issues popping up

a few spelling mistakes too , like compliant for one in bullet point 1) (it says complaint)

I would also add that witness statements for the contracts etc are not to be allowed

Coupon-mad

Try this:


POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by MET Parking Services.

My appeal is based on the following grounds.

1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. Contract with the landowner – no locus standi.

3. Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.

4. Lack of photographic evidence and unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.

5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


To expand on these points:

1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
MET Parking Services state in their letter of rejection that the parking charge represents a claim for liquidated damages. Accordingly, the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

I require MET to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. MET cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner does not impose a parking fee for the area in question, there is no loss to MET nor the landowner. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''


2. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
MET do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that MET 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. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow MET to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between MET and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/71a4eb1b5de25e5c60b4d5cacfed6b40?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'

I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. MET cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.


3. Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
The Notice I have received, as the registered owner of the vehicle, makes it clear that MET is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. MET has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’. This may, in law, be MET Parking Services or their client, their debt collecting agent, or the landowner or indeed some other party. Schedule 4 of the Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have the words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is.....”.

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not just indicate that the creditor must be named/assumed, but “identified”. The owner of the vehicle is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom the driver has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the ‘Creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, MET Parking Services has failed to establish keeper liability. In this case, the NTK has not been correctly 'given' under POFA2012 and so it is a nullity. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is 'fundamental to establishing liability' for a parking charge, stating: 'where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'


4. Lack of photographic evidence and unreliable, unsynchronised, non-compliant ANPR system.
I call into question the reliability and compliance of the ANPR system because MET are relying on two pictures of a vehicle. The first picture shows a car and number plate of my car apparently entering the site. The second picture shows a car but with no number plate visible, hence it cannot be demonstrated that this is the same car exiting the same site. The registration plate is shown separately with no time attached to that image and no location identified in the dark.

So I require the Operator to present records which prove:

- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.

- the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.

The Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped accurately, and this is in addition to the missing time/location/number-plate evidence from the second photo. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put MET to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here.

Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.


5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that MET are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

Based on the above arguments, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Burlington

Dear forum members and in particular NEWBIES, like me.

Not long ago I received a 'ticket' from a private parking operator.

I decided to do a bit of research into the validity of their claim and luckily found this forum.

Experienced members (you know who you are!) were extremely kind and helpful.

I followed their advice, to the letter, in my appeal to POPLA.

And this was the result:

04 February 2014
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

Reference xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir or Madam
(Appellant)
-v-
Met Parking Services Ltd (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark xxxxxxx .
Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.
You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Reeve Service Manager
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded


Many thanks to everyone

Dublindel

A geographical trading address should be supplied to you for MET parking. Without that they also have no case.

prosnap

Congratulations


Gives me renewed hope that I can add to the Met parking losses this month.

Coupon-mad

Wow that only took a week! Nice result and if anyone wants to plagiarise the final POPLA appeal version above please feel free, of course, with suitable amendments.

4consumerrights

^^^ Nice one Coupon/Burlington - no doubt MET took one look at that appeal and realised they were stuffed.


Coupon - may be worth linking somewhere in your sticky thread - please!

edward123

MET Parking Services wrote and boldly claimed: ""Our charge notice represents a claim for liquidated damages and the sum we are seeking to recover has been calculated as a genuine pre-estimate of loss and reflects the anticipated recovery of the direct costs of enforcing adherence to the terms and conditions of parking on that site" and "We note that you have requested a copy of the contract between ourselves and our client, however, we do not believe that it is necessary to provide this at this stage. Should the matter proceed to court we will provide all necessary paperwork, redacted as appropriate, to support our claim as creditor."


But at the POPLA stage we find:

04 February 2014
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

Reference xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir or Madam
(Appellant)
-v-
Met Parking Services Ltd (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark xxxxxxx .
Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.
You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator."

In conclusion then MET Parking Services claims are demonstrably false.
Reading this MET Parking Services? Because many are and they will find out from this you are a weak and beggarly outfit....like other PPC's.