Met Parking Charge - Change of Address

chigz

Hi,

this is my first post regarding a parking tickets received from MET. I have read the newbie thread but wanted some advice prior to appealing.

To give some background:
MET have recently been introduced to a car park in a business park I work at (Stockley Park). I received a ticket for "parking outside of the markings of a parking bay" however people have been parking in this spot for as long as I have been there and still do. There are no signs to say a car should not be parked there.

The newbie threads states that I should wait to received a NTK in the post. However at the time of receiving the parking ticket I had just sent off my license to have the address changed. I am not sure if this would have been updated and if the NTK would have gone to my old address. Should I appeal without receiving this?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes it's probably best in your case to send the usual appeal as keeper of the car (not driver), around day 21. Diarise that date now. There is a reason for waiting a bit!

Also if you were looking at it earlier today - you may notice that I have updated the first appeal in the Newbies thread so it's got more to it now, so use that when you get to day 21.

chigz

Thanks,

It was 2 weeks yesterday so I will wait till next week to send this off. Is it better to send or letter or is the online appeal ok? I will take a look at the up date when I get home tonight.

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Online is good as you know they have got it and can't pretend it was lost in the post. In fact if submitting online, wait till day 25 and make sure your postal address is on the appeal. You want to be 'in' with that appeal, before they are allowed to apply for the keeper's data (after day 28 only) so day 25 will be just right. Waiting 25 days will almost certainly mean they will never serve a NTK letter which scuppers their chances of keeper liability. Some PPCs have caught on that they have to send a NTK anyway (even if they have an appeal from a keeper in between) but not many.

So it will then be a matter at POPLA stage of waiting till almost the last day before the code expires to submit that appeal, so that a 'magic number' of 56 days has elapsed by that time and MET will be too late to rectify the NTK omission = should be a slam dunk win.

chigz

Hi,
So I received the rejection letter from MET along with POPLA appeal code for which the deadline is 20th Nov to appeal by. Just so I understand this correctly, I should wait till the 20th to appeal?

Also I haven't received a NTK yet. Please could explain why this makes it easier to win the case?

Thanks

Umkomaas

You need to get on with researching and drafting your POPLA appeal right away, then let us have a look at it. After our comments, hold on to it until almost the last day. You need to frame your appeal as 'the keeper', not the driver.

The importance of not receiving the NtK within the statutory timescale of 56 days of the parking event means, legally, the PPC cannot pursue the keeper - only the driver, and the keeper is under no obligation, moral or legal, to reveal the driver's details. One of your main appeal points will be that a NtK was not served within the required timescale , therefore the PPC forgoes the right to pursue you as the keeper - they need to chase the driver, whoever he or she is!

So you need to carefully calculate the 56 day point. The parking event date is day 0. Weekends and Bank Holidays are counted in the 56 days.

If 56 days don't expire until after the POPLA deadline date, make sure you don't delay beyond the deadline in submitting your appeal; it is a one-off chance to knock this on the head. There are no extensions of deadlines by POPLA.

HTH

EnigmaPart1

Met dont bother submitting evidence for gpeol appeals

Coupon-mad

chigz wrote: »

Hi,
So I received the rejection letter from MET along with POPLA appeal code for which the deadline is 20th Nov to appeal by. Just so I understand this correctly, I should wait till the 20th to appeal?

Not necessarily that long - calculate day 57.

Also I haven't received a NTK yet. Please could explain why this makes it easier to win the case?

Does this really need explaining? You've appealed as keeper. A PPC has to serve a NTK by day 57 as part of the requirements of the POFA, if the keeper is to be held liable! What do you think is the outcome when they don't send one and you point that out to POPLA, after day 57 has been and gone?!

chigz

Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was not even half full, so if the car was indeed parked outside of a bay (which is denied as I am the keeper and it is up to MET to show as much) there was no loss of potential income in a free car park.

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.

2) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
MET has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put MET to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). MET 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. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that MET are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require MET 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 a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. 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 - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

3) Non compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012
The NTK completely misinforms the rights of a registered keeper to appeal, alleging that the appeal time has 'elapsed' when it has not and wrongly restricting the keeper's options at that stage to appealing only if the vehicle was stolen. I have no hesitation is stating to POPLA that this is a lie that POPLA should report to the BPA. In addition, the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

Schedule 4 para8(1): 'A notice which is to be relied on as a {NTK is given} if the following requirements are met. (2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt paymentand the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available'

The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.

4) Unclear of signage
The signage in the park is unclear. It states that cars must be parked in marked bays. However there are no signs to suggest where the driver had parked was not a bay. The areas that are restricted are clearly marked with white checks and the driver did not park in any of these sections.

5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

An unlit sign of terms placed to high to read, is far from 'transparent'.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

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 rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Coupon-mad

You have copied one full of 'UKCPS' so I stopped reading until you've done a bit of housekeeping and changed it to MET (please). We can't do the obvious proof reading of detail, but we'll help review it.

And eek, not sure your mind is quite focussed yet!

However there are no signs to suggest where XXXXXX had parked was not a bay.

Eeek again! You want to throw away that 'no keeper liability' slam-dunk winning point then?!

chigz

Sorry Coupon mad, wasted your time due to my ignorance. Will spend more time researching this and re writing.