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!

Meteor PCN Railway Station

Options
2

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,071 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    That's fine and yes you could include a copy of the ticket. :)
    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 THREAD
  • fuziduck
    fuziduck Posts: 37 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Thanks CM


    Onwards!! :)
  • Good Morning all,

    I have now received the rejection to my appeal from Meteor. And they have provided a POPLA code!

    First of all, here are the signs within the station car park, I do not think there were any signs on the entrance to the car park but I will check.
    I have also attached the letter I received from Meteor.
    hXXp://s310.photobucket.com/user/fuziduck_2008/library/PCN

    I tried to link these directly into the post but still not allowed unfortunately.


    I have read Ed Woods thread and it looks as though his claim is exactly the same as mine. I have copied his POPLA appeal below, should I alter this slightly to appear more individual and prevent plagiarism. (Not that POPLA can throw out an appeal on plagiarism!)

    I'll await the experts advice and go ahead next week :)


    Here is the letter:
    Dear POPLA Assessor,
    As the 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.

    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 license 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.


    Meteor are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. 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.

    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. Payment was made and no contravention occurred.

    3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The parking charge did not fall under the category of a GPEOL on the following points:

    i. The correct charge for the period in question, which was 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.

    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.

    4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
    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...''

    Test of fairness:
    ''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.

    5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

    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.''

    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.”

    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 in good faith. Meteor require strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to a persons detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

    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 the driver.
    There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.

    The 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) Meteor have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.

    6) Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability
    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.

    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.

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


    Thank you for your attention
    Yours faithfully,
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,071 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 27 October 2014 at 4:23PM
    Your pics:


    http://s310.photobucket.com/user/fuziduck_2008/library/PCN?sort=3&page=1

    Another point for your 'unclear signage' #5:

    Main white sign says 'failure to display a valid ticket may result in you receiving a parking charge notice'. Well the driver did not contravene the sign, which says nothing readable about any other contraventions at all. The only noticeable risk of getting a PCN, as shown there on the left of the sign under the tariffs, is for not displaying, nothing else.

    I would remove this bit as it's not right then, as there is a sign:

    The 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.

    ... also saying a sign 'breaches the CoP' is not important - you need to say it did not form a contract whereby a driver could have been aware of the risk of a PCN for anything other than 'failure to display'.

    And add to this point:

    6) Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability

    I would put 'Sites designated as Railways...' as point (a) and then add a point (b) = simply that Meteor have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper. It has been completely omitted, Meteor appear to have assumed it is not needed when a keeper sends reps against a windscreen ticket. But in the Schedule it is clear that a NTK is a fundamental document where the Operator does not know who the driver was (and in this case there have been no admissions on that matter). Therefore even if this was a site where byelaws affecting parking did not take precedence (which they do and Meteor have shown photos showing the byelaws, albeit unreadable), Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability anyway by forgetting the NTK.



    So, in order to win on that extra point you need to do you sums and work out when the last day they could have served a NTK on you would be (day 57 from the PCN date). And (as long as your POPLA code is still valid for long enough) submit your POPLA appeal AFTER that 'day 57'!

    You will win this. :D
    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 THREAD
  • fuziduck
    fuziduck Posts: 37 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 27 October 2014 at 5:35PM
    Thanks Coupon for the re-assurance.

    Couple of Q's.


    In clause 14.2 of the small print it does state 'parking other than in a designated parking bay.' Does your point still stand as this is not in line with the BPA cop?


    Also working out the dates. The final NTK can be issued is 14/11/14 however the closing date for my POPLA appeal will be the 15/11/14. I think this would be too close to include this clause which is a shame!


    Should I have received an evidence pack from Meteor with this letter, or is that another nail in the coffin for them?

    I really appreciate your dedication to fighting these thieves!
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,071 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 27 October 2014 at 8:26PM
    In clause 14.2 of the small print it does state 'parking other than in a designated parking bay.' Does your point still stand as this is not in line with the BPA cop?
    Yes it still stands but it's NOT about the BPA CoP. Please take the silly worthless BPA CoP (which pays lip-service at self regulation) out of your mind! I did say above, remove those words about the CoP, it doesn't win at POPLA. It's not about the CoP, it's about contract law - saying there is no contract from the signs and one definite, visible flaw is that the only clear risk of a PCN (if the driver read it) was if the ticket wasn't displayed. End of story.
    Also working out the dates. The final NTK can be issued is 14/11/14 however the closing date for my POPLA appeal will be the 15/11/14. I think this would be too close to include this clause which is a shame!
    Surely you don't give up that easily?! Isn't it obvious - certainly include the point I made but submit the POPLA appeal online on day 55? By the time the PPC see the appeal from POPLA it will be too late. Day 57 is the last day for you to receive it - not the last day for them to issue a NTK! You will stuff them on this point alone.
    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 THREAD
  • Right,
    I am going to post my appeal online at POPLA on the 14/11/14 to ensure a NTK doesn't arrive before the 15/11/14.


    As part of my appeal should I submit evidence of the paid parking ticket & 1 picture of the sign?


    My final letter is proposed below:


    The only thing that I don't think I have made clear enough is not forming a contract (but I presume this is picked up ok when I say the driver did not contravene the sign etc.)




    Dear POPLA Assessor,
    As the 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.

    1) No standing or authority to neither pursue charges or 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 license 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.


    Meteor are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. 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.

    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. Payment was made and no contravention occurred.

    3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The parking charge did not fall under the category of a GPEOL on the following points:

    i. The correct charge for the period in question, which was 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.

    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.

    4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
    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...''

    Test of fairness:
    ''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.

    5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

    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.''

    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.”

    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 in good faith. Meteor require strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to a persons detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

    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 the driver.
    There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.

    The main sign says ‘failure to display a valid ticket may result in you receiving a parking charge notice.’ The driver did not contravene the sign which says nothing readable about any other contraventions at all. The only noticeable risk of getting a PCN is for not displaying a ticket, nothing else. 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) Meteor have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.

    6) Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability

    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.



    Meteor have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper. It has been completely omitted, Meteor appear to have assumed it is not needed when a keeper sends reps against a windscreen ticket. But in the schedule it is clear that a NTK is a fundamental document where the Operator does not know who the driver was (and in this case there have been no admissions on that matter.) Therefore even if this was a site where byelaws affecting parking did not take precedence, Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability by forgetting the NTK.

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


    Thank you for your attention
    Yours faithfully,


  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,071 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    That will win. You have covered every point thoroughly.
    As part of my appeal should I submit evidence of the paid parking ticket & 1 picture of the sign?
    Yes you could do, sounds like in your case it helps your appeal arguments.
    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 THREAD
  • fuziduck
    fuziduck Posts: 37 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Hi all,


    I have now been copied into the email of evidence that has been sent to POPLA for the parking charge.

    What are my next steps? Do I need to rebut this evidence, or does my first letter suffice?


    Meteor have their own checklist which they have specifically marked registered keeper details & liability trail with a N/A. Is this an instant win?


    They have also provided a breakdown to the GPEOL, which is a joke. They say the PCN should be £120 made up of:
    £25 for parking attendant patrol
    £20 for erection and maintenance of signs & machines
    £25 office based admin
    £35 membership and other fees requiring payment in order to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA DVLA & ICO (THEY HAVEN'T EVEN CONTACTED THE DVLA???)
    £15 for General costs & stationary!!!




    They have provided no contract with the landowner and the picture of the car does not show the larger area of where it was parked and how it caused an obstruction. You can even see in the picture that the ticket is clearly displayed on the dash!
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,071 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    You will win and you do not need to rebut that rubbish, normally you would but not if they haven't even included a contract or witness statement from the landowner, let alone answered the keeper liability point at all! Add to that the dreadful rubbish about GPEOL and it's a sure win for you.
    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 THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.