We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
MET Parking Services
markisleeds
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi guys, I have just received my first appeal I sent to MET Parking Services (of which it was rejected) and now have my POPLA Code
I am now going to appeal to POPLA using the following letter.
Please can someone advise if this is sufficient and if I need to include anything else.
(Ticket was given outside the Virgin Active in Cricklewood):
Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxx
Vehicle Reg: xxx
Operator: MET Parking
I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No landowner contract assigning rights to MET to enforce contracts with drivers
3. No contract formed by the signage
1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, because the car had a permit very obviously on display on the rear parcel shelf; no doubt the employee saw it and carefully avoided taking a photograph of it. Also, no 'PCN' was present on the vehicle at all - it was only a month later when I received a postal Notice that I realised the car had apparently had a notorious 'fake PCN' from MET. A photo from MET shows a yellow envelope on the windscreen but this was presumably then removed by the employee to avoid confrontation, because it wasn't there when the driver returned.
In any case, the Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event. I require the Operator to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that ''a parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists''.
In this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to pursue, and they certainly cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage. The same is true of the parking attendant who is already paid to visit sites and take photos & issue PCNs, and is not significantly diverted from this activity when a car is considered to be parked in breach.
Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’
POPLA Senior Assessor Chris Adamson stated on 3rd December 2014 in POPLA decision Reference 6862654003 which is relevant as it is a permit case:
''there is no dispute that the Appellant did in fact possess a permit. Permits are not analogous with pay and display tickets which are bought for an individual stay and represent proof of purchase. In this case the Appellant was a permit holder and so there was no loss in relation to the permit. The Operator has provided no other evidence of any initial loss.''
and also the same Assessor has summed up many decisions thus:
''the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
2. No contract assigning rights to the Operator to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that the Operator does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require the Operator to supply:
• A copy of the current contract with the landowner (and if their contract is merely with another agent, or indeed merely the Gym, who do not own the land, then I put MET to strict proof of their rights to form contracts having been authorised from the landowner).
• A copy of the wording of the current permit scheme and a document where Gym members were advised which is the 'right way' or 'right place' to display these permits (because members were not advised of this!).
Furthermore, I require that the Operator demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that this Operator can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.
3. No contract formed by the signage
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. 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, as this is too late. There is a lack of entrance signage and the car park generally is not fully covered by signage at all bays and at no point was I aware of the risk of a punitive charge.
Neither do the signs state in clear terms how to display a permit. There was no breach since the permit was visible clearly through the rear window of the car as it was displayed on the parcelshelf.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform the Operator to cancel the PCN.
I am now going to appeal to POPLA using the following letter.
Please can someone advise if this is sufficient and if I need to include anything else.
(Ticket was given outside the Virgin Active in Cricklewood):
Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxx
Vehicle Reg: xxx
Operator: MET Parking
I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No landowner contract assigning rights to MET to enforce contracts with drivers
3. No contract formed by the signage
1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, because the car had a permit very obviously on display on the rear parcel shelf; no doubt the employee saw it and carefully avoided taking a photograph of it. Also, no 'PCN' was present on the vehicle at all - it was only a month later when I received a postal Notice that I realised the car had apparently had a notorious 'fake PCN' from MET. A photo from MET shows a yellow envelope on the windscreen but this was presumably then removed by the employee to avoid confrontation, because it wasn't there when the driver returned.
In any case, the Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event. I require the Operator to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that ''a parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists''.
In this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to pursue, and they certainly cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage. The same is true of the parking attendant who is already paid to visit sites and take photos & issue PCNs, and is not significantly diverted from this activity when a car is considered to be parked in breach.
Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’
POPLA Senior Assessor Chris Adamson stated on 3rd December 2014 in POPLA decision Reference 6862654003 which is relevant as it is a permit case:
''there is no dispute that the Appellant did in fact possess a permit. Permits are not analogous with pay and display tickets which are bought for an individual stay and represent proof of purchase. In this case the Appellant was a permit holder and so there was no loss in relation to the permit. The Operator has provided no other evidence of any initial loss.''
and also the same Assessor has summed up many decisions thus:
''the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
2. No contract assigning rights to the Operator to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that the Operator does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require the Operator to supply:
• A copy of the current contract with the landowner (and if their contract is merely with another agent, or indeed merely the Gym, who do not own the land, then I put MET to strict proof of their rights to form contracts having been authorised from the landowner).
• A copy of the wording of the current permit scheme and a document where Gym members were advised which is the 'right way' or 'right place' to display these permits (because members were not advised of this!).
Furthermore, I require that the Operator demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that this Operator can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.
3. No contract formed by the signage
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. 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, as this is too late. There is a lack of entrance signage and the car park generally is not fully covered by signage at all bays and at no point was I aware of the risk of a punitive charge.
Neither do the signs state in clear terms how to display a permit. There was no breach since the permit was visible clearly through the rear window of the car as it was displayed on the parcelshelf.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform the Operator to cancel the PCN.
0
Comments
-
not a gpeol should be the last point, not the first, plus the blue wording from the newbies thread needs to be below it too
also check for NTK pofa2012 flaws and highlight them0 -
Thanks Redx, is this better:
Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxx
Vehicle Reg: xxx
Operator: MET Parking
I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
1. No landowner contract assigning rights to MET to enforce contracts with drivers
2. No contract formed by the signage
3. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
1. No contract assigning rights to the Operator to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that the Operator does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require the Operator to supply:
• A copy of the current contract with the landowner (and if their contract is merely with another agent, or indeed merely the Gym, who do not own the land, then I put MET to strict proof of their rights to form contracts having been authorised from the landowner).
• A copy of the wording of the current permit scheme and a document where Gym members were advised which is the 'right way' or 'right place' to display these permits (because members were not advised of this!).
Furthermore, I require that the Operator demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that this Operator can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.
2. No contract formed by the signage
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. 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, as this is too late. There is a lack of entrance signage and the car park generally is not fully covered by signage at all bays and at no point was I aware of the risk of a punitive charge.
Neither do the signs state in clear terms how to display a permit. There was no breach since the permit was visible clearly through the rear window of the car as it was displayed on the parcelshelf.
3. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, because the car had a permit very obviously on display on the rear parcel shelf; no doubt the employee saw it and carefully avoided taking a photograph of it. Also, no 'PCN' was present on the vehicle at all - it was only a month later when I received a postal Notice that I realised the car had apparently had a notorious 'fake PCN' from MET. A photo from MET shows a yellow envelope on the windscreen but this was presumably then removed by the employee to avoid confrontation, because it wasn't there when the driver returned.
In any case, the Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event. I require the Operator to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that ''a parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists''.
In this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to pursue, and they certainly cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage. The same is true of the parking attendant who is already paid to visit sites and take photos & issue PCNs, and is not significantly diverted from this activity when a car is considered to be parked in breach.
Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’
POPLA Senior Assessor Chris Adamson stated on 3rd December 2014 in POPLA decision Reference 6862654003 which is relevant as it is a permit case:
''there is no dispute that the Appellant did in fact possess a permit. Permits are not analogous with pay and display tickets which are bought for an individual stay and represent proof of purchase. In this case the Appellant was a permit holder and so there was no loss in relation to the permit. The Operator has provided no other evidence of any initial loss.''
and also the same Assessor has summed up many decisions thus:
''the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform the Operator to cancel the PCN.0 -
looks good on a skim read, can you not check for NTK errors and add those too ? (assuming you did not out yourself as the driver ?)
whatever you do, leave not a gpeol etc as the last point0 -
No I have not outed myself as the driver, so will check the NTK for errors. Excuse my ignorance, but what sort of errors could they make as I cant really see any that they have made.
Thanks so much for your guidance Redx, its very much appreciated0 -
no idea, that is why we have a newbies sticky thread where CM goes into detail about the NTK, read POFA 2012 and check your NTK against it , do the work and you may be rewarded , I dont have any NTK to check against those details, plus I have no vested interest in doing so, whereas you do
if CM and others say popla are accepting appeals based on NTK flaws, who am I to argue ? she does it daily , I dont, so she should know , lol
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337
posts #1733 and #17350 -
In any case, the Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event.
Are you sure about this? Certainly a number of court cases have gone in the PPC favour.0 -
This is a valuable resource giving information on checking your NtK.
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards