PCN Appeal to MET - rejected

j1987

Hi all,


I've been a long term reader of the forum but I'm now a first time poster... I've had a read through the various stickies and Newbie threads and discovered I've already made the biggest mistake but I'm wondering if there's any hope in appealing to POPLA...


I parked in a train station car park operated by MET before getting the train into London for the day. I tried to use the Ringo app to pay for the ticket but after the payment page, the app crashed and didn't display the normal confirmation pop up. I didn't want to pay twice so rather than pay again, I thought I'd wait to see if I got an email confirmation for the payment. I arrived in London and went to my meeting, during the lunch break, I noticed that I hadn't received a confirmation email so paid for the full days parking and thought nothing more of it. On arriving back at my car that evening, I discovered that I'd been given a parking ticket a while before I'd paid for parking.


I made the mistake of appealing online as I thought any 'reasonable' company would cancel the parking ticket if I were able to explain my situation, given that I've already paid for the days parking. I filled in all of my details online and have just received the rejection letter for my appeal.


The fine is currently £60 but will rise to £100 if I don't pay within 14 days, and if I appeal to POPLA then I won't be able to take advantage of the reduced rate... I don't want to pay £60 but I really don't want to pay £100! Especially as I've already paid for the days parking!


What do you think my chances are? Any help is very much appreciated!

HO87

In rejecting your appeal did MET supply you with a POPLA code?

If so, using a suitable template from the Newbies thread you should appeal to POPLA - and should therefore win thus saving you any payment at all.

Herzlos

Almost 100% successful if you appeal to popla using the information in the newbies thread.

Redx

appeal, win , pay nothing , cost them £30 for their stubbornness and cheek

I-LOV-MONEY

I took MET parking to POPLA last year. They didn't even bother to submit any evidence!

Captain_Leaky

Sheer bloody chancers - that's all they are.

j1987

Thanks, I've got a POPLA code and I've been looking through the template thread and struggling to find an exact match. I've adapted the following but I'm a little lost so any help would be much appreciated! I'm keen to know if there's anything else I should include or if I can't include part of the below as my case is slightly different etc. Thanks in advance!


Dear POPLA Assessor,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below; I would ask that all points are taken into consideration;

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. 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 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.

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 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 MET parking attendant, no evidence has been provided by MET (i.e. a photograph of my vehicle) has been offered by MET to support the PCN they have issued. In this case the onus surely falls to MET to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the claimed breach of their terms and conditions took place. I contend the driver paid and displayed and no contravention occurred.

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I would contest the parking charge as not being a GPEOL on the following points:

I. MET did not accept my email confirmation of payment that was provided to them as valid entitlement to park. I would contend that in refusing to do so, MET are not taking the requisite steps to prove that a loss has occurred.


ii. The correct charge for the period in question was paid in full. The parking contravention charge is out of all proportion to any potential loss on the part of MET and therefore does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no dispute that the driver did in fact pay the amount required.

iii. 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.

iv. 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. As was found by District Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' (a case which turned on whether there was a loss to pursue from a consumer) no staff have been 'significantly diverted' from their duties. In this case, issuing a PCN and then handling appeals is a part of MET salaried staff's normal day to day activity, so staffing costs/NI contributions cannot be properly included in a loss statement.

v. Cases only go to POPLA in some 1% of cases, so the cost of a POPLA appeal is far too remote to include in a GPEOL statement set before parking events occur. The possibility of the POPLA route is rarer even than the debt collector route, so it cannot have been in the reasonable contemplation of MET when setting the level of 'charge' that POPLA costs would flow from an average parking event. As a matter of policy, POPLA Assessors do not allow debt collection costs to be included in a GPEOL because most cases do not follow that route. The same applies to 'POPLA costs', as was found by Nadesh Karunairetnam in ref 4212674003 in November 2014:

'... the cost of bringing the case to POPLA is too remote - it would not be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator. Therefore, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. '


4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
I would assert that the charge being claimed by MET 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.”

I contend 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. I put MET to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to my 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.
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs at the ticket machine failed to properly warn/inform the driver that an additional punitive charge would apply if the service provided was unavailable. 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 when entering the station platform area, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) MET have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform MET to cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I presume your first appeal gave away who was driving, hence why you've had to lose the good appeal point 'no keeper liability' that we'd normally include. Apart from that, it's good and MET normally don't waste their time contesting these with any evidence at all. You should just win in about a month or so.

prosnap

I am currently on my 5th ticket from Met. They have not contested any at POPLA.

Don't waste too much time on this as they wont.

Just put the main points and wait for the "appeal successful" letter from POPLA

j1987

Thanks guys, I've submitted my appeal so will wait to see what they say!


Thanks for all your help, not just in this thread but in all of the other sticky threads and guides! It's much appreciated.