Meteor parking charge at Railway for parking outside bay

ed_wood

Its now over a month since I sent my letter to these parasites and I've had no reply. Is it likely they've given up?

Coupon-mad

I expect you 'might' get a reply in the end but really can't see any of these misleading cases proceeding to anything within the 6 months the TOC (train operating co) have to lay a case before Mag's court. No penalty was ever issued. A 'parking charge notice' isn't a real penalty notice in any way, shape or form.

I would not prompt them for anything, let them time out.

Once you are past the 6 months you are completely safe from a real 'penalty' being pursued by the TOC. That would be the time to complain to the DVLA an the nearest Council Trading Standards office and Passenger Focus, and the TOC, in the strongest terms that Meteor are misleading people in a broadly similar way to MET Parking and are denying a POPLA code for a parking charge notice (when the BPA Code of Practice says they have to supply one and indded the PCN said POPLA was available):

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=4311.0

So keep your powder dry but be ready to complain once the 6 months from the PCN is up.

ed_wood

In a further development I've just received a letter rejecting my appeal and giving me a popla number!

ed_wood

Any help with what to write on my popla form would be much appreciated.

The_Slithy_Tove

NEWBIES thread, post #4.

ed_wood

was just wondering if i nneded to add any extras due to the circumstances.
My general complaint is that:
A. the ticket was bought at the ticket office at the station. there were no signs in the office indicating where I could park or any mention of meteor. The ticket I bought is on a standard british rail train ticket but says car park on it.
B. the placed I parked had no signage indicating you couldnt park there as opposed to other parts of the car park that had specific signage stating no parking
Are these points what I should go with?

Coupon-mad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

NEWBIES thread, post #4.

Newbies thread post #3, 'How to win at POPLA' link of examples is where this OP needs to look.

That is a good development - now you will win, ed wood. You will see the usual templates which would suit a windscreen ticket at a station, such as the NCP example linked in that section of the newbies thread, as that one (I think) already covers the fact payment was made and the unclear signage issue.

All you would need to add to the NCP version (apart from making small relevant changes like changing NCP to 'Meteor' throughout) would be the usual sort of wording found in any Airport example which states that 'the PPC has failed to establish any keeper liability because the byelaws mean it is not relevant land.' I re-wrote a version of those words only yesterday in the APCOA Airport template you will find in the 'How to win at POPLA' examples.

So use the NCP example as your base and amalgamate the APCOA Airport section about 'no keeper liability' into it as well (changing 'Airport site/road' to 'train station car park'). Both have byelaws so it's a similar argument.

Hope that makes sense - it will do when you read those 2 examples. You never got any 'Notice to Keeper' did you? You appealed around 21 days after the windscreen ticket and never got a Notice after that until this rejection? If so then, unlike the APCOA Airport version which shows why the NTK isn't compliant, you can say in fact there has been no NTK served at all in your case so Meteor can't enforce this PCN against you as keeper. Slam dunk win!

Don't talk about 'what happened' in the POPLA appeal - look how easily you accidentally typed 'I parked' in your post above, when we've been careful to ensure you used template appeals NOT naming the driver up to this point.


Show us the hybrid POPLA appeal that you cobble together!

ed_wood

Thanks as ever CM. Heres what I've come up with. Is this ok?

[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Assessor,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below; I would ask that all points are taken into consideration;

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. Meteor have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents for the Train Operator. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that they are entitled or assigned any title/rights to demand money from me.

I require Meteor to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2) No visual evidence of the alleged contravention provided: Beyond the assertion of the Meteor parking attendant, no evidence has been provided by Meteor (i.e. a photograph of my vehicle parked incorrectly in a signed no parking area) has been offered by Meteor to support the PCN they have issued. In this case the onus surely falls to Meteor to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the claimed breach of their terms and conditions took place. I contend I paid and displayed and no contravention occurred.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would contest the parking charge as not being a GPEOL on the following points:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i. The correct charge for the period in question, which I paid in full, was £5.80, with the permit valid until the following day. The parking contravention charge of £90 is out of all proportion to any potential loss on the part of Meteor and therefore does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
ii. There is no loss flowing from this parking event. This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would assert that the charge being claimed by Meteor is a punitive sum. The following refers: Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999': ''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Test of fairness:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
''A term is unfair if...contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a driver who has proved they paid the tariff and displayed the flimsy ticket in good faith. I put NCP to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and was not seen before parking - so there was no valid contract formed between Meteor and myself as driver. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I can confirm that there was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and myself which could have created any contract for me to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. There is no signage at the point of purchase, inside the railway station, and no signage at the entrance to the car park. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, such as when the driver walks away and past a sign (on the opposite side of the car park) when entering the station platform area, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) NCP have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6) Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Meteor have failed to fulfil the requirements necessary under statute (the POFA 2012) to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Sites designated as Railways by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050. The driver has not been identified, therefore as registered keeper I cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If Meteor argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the Railway is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon Meteor to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform Meteor to cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,[/FONT]

ampersand

Erratic computer/comms makes my posting equally so atm, op - but straight away I'm seeing several 1st person instances of usage, which you must lose:

'f.a.o. POPLA Assessor,
As registered keeper of the vehicle above I am appealing against the parking charge above. Below are my grounds for non-liability and I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

'[STRIKE]I contend I [/STRIKE]The required fee was paid and displayed and no contravention occurred.'[ then ref. to any attached pic/ tkt]
#
Next para, lose this: 'which I paid in full, '
#
Lose 'I would assert that' Start sentence, 'The charge is....'
#
Lose 'I contend that'. Start sentence 'It is wholly unreasonable....'
#
Write 'The Registered Keeper', or depersonalise, using 'the Appellant'[always upper case A], instead of 'I' in the body of your text, esp. 'my detriment'> 'the Appellant's detriment' and so forth. You see how it is done. You can leave it in the final sentence, as a treat:-) with a little final grammar tweak

'I request that my appeal is upheld and that POPLA inform Meteor accordingly that their speculative invoice must be cancelled.'

Do you want to add 'Thank you for your attention' above siggie?

Well done for using y/f, not y/s.

Coupon-mad

Spotted another one:

''I can confirm that there was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver* which could have created any contract''

(not 'myself').

Double check your entire appeal for any instances of 'me, myself and I' and they are only OK if you are saying 'I am the registered keeper/I am not liable' types of sentences - not when talking about the parking event.