We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
2 parking tickets from MET - popla appeal
w234
Posts: 9 Forumite
Hi
We have received two parking tickets (through the post) from MET for using the Riverside Leisure Centre's car park in Norwich. My wife took the kids for a swim on Saturday and I took them the next day. Got the receipt showing we have used the centre on Sat and my bank statement shows the same on Sun. I can't find the receipt. Spoken to the manager and guess what...he can't do anything. Apparently we were supposed to sign up in the book at the reception if we expected we will stay longer than 2.5 hrs. We stayed 20 minutes longer...
I though that sending the receipt and bank statement will be enough for MET but I was wrong.
Got the popla verification code and am ready to appeal to popla.
I've read the threads on the topic and I have adjusted one of the well designed templates :cool:
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. ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
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
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):
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. ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that MET have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that MET present records as to 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. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require MET to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. 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 with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put MET to strict proof to the contrary.
5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because MET are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). 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, as this is too late. 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.
Not sure if I should use the last point about the signs as there are lots of them at the car park stating max 2.5 hrs stay...
Please let me know if the template is ok
Any comments will be much appreciated!!!
We have received two parking tickets (through the post) from MET for using the Riverside Leisure Centre's car park in Norwich. My wife took the kids for a swim on Saturday and I took them the next day. Got the receipt showing we have used the centre on Sat and my bank statement shows the same on Sun. I can't find the receipt. Spoken to the manager and guess what...he can't do anything. Apparently we were supposed to sign up in the book at the reception if we expected we will stay longer than 2.5 hrs. We stayed 20 minutes longer...
I though that sending the receipt and bank statement will be enough for MET but I was wrong.
Got the popla verification code and am ready to appeal to popla.
I've read the threads on the topic and I have adjusted one of the well designed templates :cool:
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. ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
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
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):
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. ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that MET have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that MET present records as to 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. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require MET to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. 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 with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put MET to strict proof to the contrary.
5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because MET are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). 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, as this is too late. 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.
Not sure if I should use the last point about the signs as there are lots of them at the car park stating max 2.5 hrs stay...
Please let me know if the template is ok
Any comments will be much appreciated!!!
0
Comments
-
Are there notices drawing attention to the requirement to sign in the book for more than 2.5 hours free parking?
MET's employers Norwich Council confirm that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as on their website it states:-Free parking up to 2½ hours is available for centre users. For longer stays you must register your car at reception to avoid a penalty charge.
http://www.norwich.gov.uk/SportAndLeisure/pages/Swimming.aspx
It must be worth adding this to your appeal.0 -
W234 , these words quoted by nigelbb are magic. MET are not allowed to issue a penalty charge. Certainly at POPLA I would be inclined to make a big deal about this.
A complaint should be winging its way to the BPA about the council website and to your local council too.Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0 -
Also proof read your POPLA appeal again as I just skim-read it and found this in the wrong section, with the wrong PPC mentioned as well!
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you all for your replies!
I will add the magic fact found by Nigelbb :beer: at the beginning of the first point of the appeal:
1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
MET's employer - Norwich City Council confirms on their website that the
parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as it states:
. MET is not allowed to issue a penalty charge.Free parking up to 2½ hours is available for centre users. For longer stays you must register your car at reception to avoid a penalty charge.
will add a link to their website...
I have also proof read my appeal and moved the:
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.
to the right section with the right PPC thanks Coupon-mad
Do you think that the rest will do the job or should I change something ?
Not sure if I should use the last point of the appeal:
5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
as there are lots of them at the car park stating max 2.5 hrs stay...
what do you think?
Thank you in advance!0 -
MET's employer - Norwich City Council confirms on their website that the
parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as it states:
. MET is not allowed to issue a penalty charge.
will add a link to their website...
Not sure if I should use the last point of the appeal:
5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
as there are lots of them at the car park stating max 2.5 hrs stay...
what do you think?
Personally I would get a screen shot of the web site too and include it as evidence - wording on web sites can be quickly altered and it will be 4 to 5 weeks or so before your appeal is assessed once submitted.
Yes include the signage point - always worth it - creates more work for them to try to prove the signs are compliant
0 -
Remember it is about size, font, actual language, height and many other things that make them non-compliant. You could have 100 but if they all used eg the word "penalty" they would all be non compliant ! And often the terms are unclear. One sign I remember was written in such a way that only disabled people were allowed to use the large car park!Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0
-
Thanks again!
Will keep the signage point - anything causing more work for MET is worth adding!
Will also add the screen shot of the website...
Finally will send the two POPLA appeals on Monday and of course will let you know how it goes. 0 -
You can submit the POPLA appeals on line via the POPLA web site but if
sending by post take to the P.O. and get a free certificate of posting0 -
Hi
Just got a reply from POPLA. Both appeals were approved and MET has to cancel the parking tickets!It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Thank you all for your help again!!!0 -
well done m8 (as if there was ever any doubt !) lol
please post the PPC, assessor and decisions in here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337
thank you0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards