Popla met parking advice please !

Tryingtogetalong

I have had an appeal letter rejected and have been passed on to the next stage an appeal with POPLA...... Looking at the "standard" sample letters I cannot find one that is similar, Van was photographed by parking attendant on moped, however one of the pics shows the signage missing from the wall next to the van. Looking for a template that does not mention automatic camera system....can anyone help me ?

ColliesCarer

Take a look at the post #3 of the NEWBIES thread for how to win at POPLA and recent POPLA decisions ( go to last page and scroll back)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

If ANPR is'nt applicable just take it out - just make sure you include the 3 main points which are NO GPEOL, No legal standing and NO/ unclear signage therefore no contract with driver
Once you've drafted it post it up for help/fine tuning

Tryingtogetalong

POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wishto 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. 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 theparking charge represents a claim for liquidated damages. Accordingly, theentirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in orderto be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon lossflowing from a breach of the parking terms.

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

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking chargesfor breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during thetime the motorist is parked there. As the landowner does not impose a parkingfee for the area in question, there is no loss to MET nor the landowner. TheOffice of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is notautomatically 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 theland in question. As such, I do not believe that MET has the necessary legalcapacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the carpark, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight ofa full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated siteagreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of papersaying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witnessstatements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever thatthe alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is evenan employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there isa payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which wouldaffect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includesthe necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow MET topursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grantthem the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

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

So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contendthe Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believeit is merely a standard business agreement between MET and their client, whichis true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create acontract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye vClarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked):



In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own anytitle in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages forbreach...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 apparentlyfrom those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who arein breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So Iam satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have notsatisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they makea profit from the breach.'

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


3. Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – nokeeper liability.
The Notice I have received, as the registered owner of thevehicle, makes it clear that MET is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection ofFreedoms Act 2012. MET has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice toKeeper since they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’. This may, in law, beMET Parking Services or their client, their debt collecting agent, or thelandowner or indeed some other party. Schedule 4 of the Act requires a Noticeto 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 justindicate that the creditor must be named/assumed, but “identified”. The ownerof the vehicle is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom thedriver has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the‘Creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, MET Parking Services has failed toestablish keeper liability. In this case, the NTK has not been correctly'given' under POFA2012 and so it is a nullity. In a previous ruling, POPLAAssessor Matthew Shaw stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is'fundamental to establishing liability' for a parking charge, stating: 'where aNotice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with anystatutory provision, comply with the Act.'





4. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract withdrivers.
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of thesmallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend thatthe signs and any core parking terms that MET are relying upon were too smallfor the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the carpark also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signageevidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time ofthe parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position andclarity) are shown to be missing (asdemonstrated in you photo showing our vehicle) these fail to properly informthe driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case ofExcel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not soprominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never haveagreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements ofa contract were conspicuous by their absence.

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

Guys_Dad

Looks pretty good to me. Hang on for some more informed opinion and thanks for reading the sticky.

Tryingtogetalong

Thanks again I added some words to the template :are shown to be missing (as demonstrated in you photo showing our vehicle) these . One of their pics of the van shows the marks left on the wall where the sign has been removed, I will go through and check the spacings etc before sending

Coupon-mad

That's fine - MET will very likely cancel the charge when they see that POPLA appeal.

Tryingtogetalong

MANY THANKS TO ALL...... APPEAL ALLOWED !! Charge to be cancelled.

prosnap

Congratulations .... Yet another loss to Met .. :j:T:j:T

Did Met submit anything to POPLA?

Can you post a copy of the verdict? (Your details removed)