POPLA Letter Creation - MET Parking Services

SafetyCatch

Hi.

Thank you to everyone who contributes to these forums, thanks to your advice I have followed all the previous steps and I am currently formulating my letter to POPLA.

Back in November a car registered to me was parked in a McDonalds’ car park whilst the occupants were inside. Whilst returning to the vehicle roughly 25 minutes later the driver observed a man in a high visibility jacket taking photos of a different vehicle in the car park and was relieved to see that my car was as it was left. It is worth noting that there is no ANPR, manned or unmanned pay and display system in this car park.

Fast forward to December and I receive a NTK from MET stating that the vehicle was parked without authorisation. The link to their website reveals three, time stamped photos of my car and states the contravention time 11 minutes later. Interestingly one of the photos shows an official looking yellow envelope under the wiper, which had conveniently vanished upon return to the vehicle, make of that what you will.

After following the process and at the third time of asking MET reluctantly issued me with a POPLA code. I have read through the major stickies and several related posts and I will formulate my letter using the templates provided and furnished with the following points.

Firstly I’m not entirely sure that the NTK is compliant. It fails to identify a Creditor. Is the fact that it is a headed letter from them enough?

Secondly, in their fourth letter, they state that a site survey was conducted, but have supplied no evidence of what this is or how thorough it was. Unfortunately the driver cannot provide a receipt for what would have been a cash purchase in the restaurant.

Thirdly, they state that they have included with the letter both photos of the signage and a map showing where within the car park they are; they did not. They have not actually specified what infringement has taken place.

Finally, if we assume that the first 10 minutes was a grace period, and that they cannot prove that the vehicle did not leave after 12 minutes, then surely the £100 for the minute they claim can never actually represent a true estimation of loss, especially when you consider that their photos showing empty spaces next to my car.

Any suggestions or input is welcome and I would be very appreciative of any advice or direction in order to clarify my understanding before finalising the letter. Should anyone wish to see any of the letters etc, then I can of course provide those too.

Thanks,

Safety

:grouphug:

Coupon-mad

Sorry you got no replies - have bumped your thread.

SafetyCatch

Thanks Coupon-Mad.

I've been digging into this a little further and have made an observation with regards to the supposed notice to driver ticket.

In the Notice To Keeper MET state that the violation occurred on the day at 15:55. Yet their supporting 'Evidence' photos show a yellow envelope under the windscreen wiper on one of the photos with the timestamp 11 minutes before at 15:44.

Shouldn't there be at least two different photos with two different times? Who is to say that the driver didn't come back before 15:55?

Umkomaas

It's all stuff to put into your POPLA appeal, but none of it should become its major part.

The 'creditor' must be specifically stated in the NtK - an assumption to be made from a letter heading is not good enough to satisfy the LAW on this. If you want to check other compliance angles do it against this. It is not a pick and mix for the PPC to invoke keeper liability, they must satisfy everything the LAW demands of them.

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

Your point about 'just being over' the grace period is weak in my view. The grace period already extends beyond the parking time limit, so expecting further grace beyond the grace period is unlikely to find any support from POPLA, especially as you are assuming the basic grace period is 10 minutes.

Concentrate on the tried and tested group of winning points:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
4. No proprietary interest in the land
5. Unlawful penalty masquerading as a parking Charge

By the way, their 'site survey' apparently consists of the parking drone entering the burger bar and shouting out a list of car numbers. Failure to put your hand up results in a ticket. Isn't technology wonderful!

SafetyCatch

Thanks Umkomaas.


Sorry if I didn't initially make it clear. There is a 90 minute maximum stay for Customers and an initial 10 minute stay for anyone.


However I have not seen the signs, I have only called the restaurant and asked them.


Thanks for the link, I will investigate further. Do you know if the operators would have any obligation to prove they issued a ticket to driver, by the way of counterpart?

Umkomaas

SafetyCatch wrote: »

Thanks Umkomaas.


Sorry if I didn't initially make it clear. There is a 90 minute maximum stay for Customers and an initial 10 minute stay for anyone.


However I have not seen the signs, I have only called the restaurant and asked them.


Thanks for the link, I will investigate further. Do you know if the operators would have any obligation to prove they issued a ticket to driver, by the way of counterpart?

They may show this in any evidence pack they provide to POPLA, but I don't think it will prove a showstopper either way.

Have you made a strong complaint to the manager at McD's? There's plenty of good evidence that they can and do have PCNs cancelled.

SafetyCatch

Thanks again Umkomaas,


I have spoken to McDonalds, but have been relatively palmed off.

Below is my drafted POPLA letter. If anyone has any further advice, it is entirely welcome. I'm looking forward to putting this to bed.




Sir,

I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle (Registration) which is the subject of parking charge notice (number) issued by MET Parking Services.

Having digested the allegations, I emphatically contest the charge due to any and all of the following points.

A) Genuine pre-estimate of loss
Unfair contractual terms
C) No contractual authority to levy charges
D) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage
E) lack of evidence provided of alleged infringement


A) not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Department for Transport state in their guidance for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

I have no doubt that this arbitrary amount has been introduced by MET Parking to deliberately penalise the driver. I have repeatedly asked them to provide an accurate breakdown of this calculation and I have been routinely ignored. Members of the public do not pay a fee to use this specific car park, and on the date in question, the respondents’ own photos of ‘evidence’ show the car park was not at full capacity. Therefore the suggestion that the landholder is at a loss to the amount of £100, is laughable at best and fraudulent at worst; there is simply no realistic scenario in which the figure can apply.

Neither can the sum be claimed as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The guidance is abundantly clear on claiming administrative costs and operational day to day running costs as loss. The fact that any and every so called breach attracts the same sum is further evidence that MET Parking are simply chancing their arm.

Furthermore, how could it be possible for a genuine pre-estimate amount to be discounted down to £50 for quick payment, yet still apparently satisfy the loss? I believe this amount has been fabricated by MET Parking Services and emphatically challenge them to prove otherwise.

Unfair contractual Terms.

The operator states that a ‘contract’ was agreed upon by the driver upon entering the carpark. The guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 stipulates that:

"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."

And

"A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

The above two extracts alone show a contravention of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, and subsequently believe the operators ‘contract’ null and void.

C) No contractual authority to levy charges.

It is my belief that MET Parking do not own this car park and that they are merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. Despite my request, they have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a keeper, or that they possess the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parked in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract.

Therefore I simply cannot begin to contemplate this charge until the operator provides a full copy of the actual signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier which furthermore complies fully with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

Simply stating it on an official looking letter that they have the authority does not make it true.

D) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage.

With the poorly constructed and generic response to my initial appeal letter, the Operator claims to enclose both a copy of the carpark signage and a map detailing their locations; alas, they did not.

I can only assume the reason for this is that they fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fail to properly warn or inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for subsequent breach. I once again challenge them to provide contrary evidence.

E) lack of evidence provided of alleged infringement.

After a series of laborious correspondences with the Operator it transpires that the actual alleged offense was that the driver had parked and left the premises, when in fact the driver was in the restaurant for the duration of the visit.

MET Parking further allege that a ‘Site Survey’ was carried out by an operative and that there was nobody to take accountability for my vehicle. If this is the case then I require strict proof that this survey was actually carried out, along with a full and detailed explanation of what constitutes a survey, how this observation was made, by whom and how it was recorded as evidence.

If it is their assertion that the operator observed the driver leaving the site, then proof must include photographs of the contravention, a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site.

If no such sign nor evidence exists then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of evidence I deny that there was any contravention. I would also be interested to hear an explanation of why this operative, who under contract law has an obligation to mitigate loss, (presumably) watched a driver walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary, yet made no attempt to stop/warn them. So far, the only evidence offered by MET Parking has been a series of identically time stamped photos of an empty, yet impeccably parked car.

Summary

To surmise, I find it extremely difficult to veil my contempt for MET Parking Services and their morally !!!!!! business model. They should not be allowed to issue baseless spurious charges and follow them with letters threatening debt collection. However I have engaged in this long and laborious process, and on the balance of evidence provided by the operator, I do not believe that I have a case to answer for and therefore, unless they are forthcoming with any of the evidence requested above ask that you kindly uphold this appeal.

Kind regards,

Redx

if that was only the actual restaurant, then complain strongly to their head office, details via the sticky threads

SafetyCatch

Thanks RedX.

I took on board your advice and this morning I contacted the restaurant to get the details of the Owner/Manager to submit to their HQ.

It seems this spiked their interest and now the Store Manager is due to call me back this afternoon.

So we wait and see. In the mean time I'd appreciate if anyone could give my draft a quick once over should i need to submit it before next Friday’s deadline.

Thanks

/Safety

prosnap

I've beaten MET twice this week at POPLA. My letters to them only contained points A & C. With them it's generally a waste of ink to go any further.

They have yet to send any evidence to POPLA regarding any of my 4 appeals in total. Needless to say that I have won all 4 by default.

SafetyCatch

Thanks Prosnap, that's heartening!


I have spoken to the manager at McDonald's, who confirmed that he could cancel the ticket, but won't as his CCTV records only go back 30 days and can't check either way.


So the letter has gone to POPLA. Here we go.