Met Parking Charge - Change of Address

Coupon-mad

No probs chigz, this is basic stuff though, nothing to do with whether you know anything about parking rules and law! It's not about research, not the points I just noticed. If you are going to write an appeal about MET then you can't talk about another Operator called UKCPS! And you must think with your registered keeper hat on, talking about 'the driver this' and 'the driver that' in the third person. NOT 'me/myself/I'! You'll soon sort it so we can review it.

Edit your point I quoted right now though, remove it NOW as some firms read this forum.

Have you not tried the easiest thing in the World? i.e. just simply Google 'MET POPLA Appeal' and find a forum written one from recent weeks by that simple search!

chigz

I have made the amendments to the appeal letter.

There is a lot of information on this site and others, and I am just not sure which parts to use.

Please can I ask for some help on:

3) Non Compliant NTK - May be a stupid question but does the rejection letter from MET count as the NTK? If not then nothing else has been received except for the ticket itself. I will edit point 3 accordingly.

4) Should I include this? Along with the rejection letter they have sent an image of the car park and where the signs are placed. You can clearly see where the restricted areas are. The driver was not parked in any of these areas.

5) should i upload pic of the signage, please can you tell me if this is valid point?

Thanks again all.

Coupon-mad

May be a stupid question but does the rejection letter from MET count as the NTK?

Nope, they won't have sent a NTK, if you appealed around day 21 - because PPCs are stupid. They should have done! That's why I told you to wait until day 21, hehehe, it's probably worked again!

And now you need to wait until day 56 (count from the PCN day) to submit the POPLA appeal IF that's still within the POPLA code time before it expires.

Point 3 needs changing to say 'no NTK issued...blah blah ...no keeper liability' (there's a recent thread where I posted exactly this point just days ago).

Should I include this? Along with the rejection letter they have sent an image of the car park and where the signs are placed. You can clearly see where the restricted areas are. The driver was not parked in any of these areas.

Yes.

should i upload pic of the signage, please can you tell me if this is valid point?

Yes it is if you are showing a pic where there is a LACK of signs, or that they are far too high to read, etc. Not otherwise.

chigz

Hi,

I have re written the letter. Please can you review the changes I have made.

I tried to search for your post regarding no NTK being sent but couldn't find it. I have look into Sch 4 myself and quoted Para 6. Please can you confirm that is correct?

I cant seem to upload the pictures I want to send. Just shows where the driver had parked which does not have any signs compared to an area which is restricted.

I have taken out point 5.

Thanks!


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) Notice to Keeper not received- no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012


In accordance with Schedule 4 para 6:

The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor):
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
(2) If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper must be given in accordance with paragraph 8.

As no NTK has been received, no keeper liability exists.

4) Unclear of signage-
The signage in the park is unclear. It states that cars must be parked with in marked bays. However there are no signs to suggest where the driver had parked was not a bay nor a sign to suggest it was restricted, attachment 1 shows where the drive had parked. The areas that are restricted are clearly marked with white checks, attachment 2, and the driver did not park in any of these sections.

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

Coupon-mad

Yes that looks fine - when is day 56 after the parking event and is that still within the POPLA code 'use by date'?

chigz

I received the ticket on the 24/09, so the the 56th day should be 19th Nov? My POPLA 'use by date' is the 20th.

Coupon-mad

Great. To be safe, diarise to submit it online on 18th or 19th which will leave them up the creek without a paddle by the time POPLA tell them you have appealed. They cannot then get a NTK to you by day 57 - it would not be possible and they won't. Because PPCs are stupid.

chigz

I have a number of reminders set on my phone already. Thank you for the help through out. will let you know what happens.