Parking Charge Notice -meteor / Vinci

Truck75

Hi all,
I have read the newbies posts and the others I could find. Unfortunately I didn't discover this forum until I had already sent in an appeal, which was rejected and I have made a couple of mistakes like talking about me being the driver. Which is disappointing.
I received a parking charge notice for parking at the London midland Nuneaton train station in what I thought was a genuine bay, there are feint white lines at the bay, there is no sign at the space location just the terms and condition at the entry.
I've got a popla code, it talks about parking in breach of the terms and conditions, and I h
..... I have breached code 3 parked in an unauthorised area.
I have until 17 October to pay the reduced amount £45. I paid £7 to park in the car park.
Any advice would be really appreciated, I presume from what I have read I don't pay up but use a template to appeal to popla

enfield_freddy

does it / or the signage make reference to railway bylaws

Fruitcake

There is no template appeal for PoPLA as every one needs to be tailor made to fit each situation.


Have a look through the POPLA decision thread and find some that are similar to your case, then fine tune to fit your situation. Use the search facility and keywords such as railway, Nuneaton, and station. Other key words are available.

Truck75

Hi thanks for such prompt responses/advice. I'll continue the research.

I can only see reference to terms and condition, no reference to bye laws - there might be in the small print on the sign but nothing in the appeal rejection letter

HO87

Meteor have form for attempting to enforce an inflated 28-day charge of £165. Does that apply in this case?

Although they are likely to try to obfuscate Meteor cannot apply POFA as railway property is subject to railway byelaws which prevents the car park in question being "relevant land". This means that they cannot invoke the keeper liability provisions and can only pursue the driver. Every effort should therefore be made to ensure that they gain no idea of who that might have been.

Given the above it would be unwise to appeal against the charge until a Notice to Keeper arrives with the registered keeper. Were you to appeal before that how would the keeper have become aware if they didn't have the original PCN in their hand?

Ho Hum.

Meteor are a wholly owned by the Go-ahead Group who also own Southeastern railways and should, by now, have come to understand the distinct differences between a breach of contract charge and one purportedly issued within the terms of the railway byelaws.

fisherjim

HO87 wrote: »

Meteor have form for attempting to enforce an inflated 28-day charge of £165. Does that apply in this case?

Although they are likely to try to obfuscate Meteor cannot apply POFA as railway property is subject to railway byelaws which prevents the car park in question being "relevant land". This means that they cannot invoke the keeper liability provisions and can only pursue the driver. Every effort should therefore be made to ensure that they gain no idea of who that might have been.

Given the above it would be unwise to appeal against the charge until a Notice to Keeper arrives with the registered keeper. Were you to appeal before that how would the keeper have become aware if they didn't have the original PCN in their hand?

Ho Hum.

Meteor are a wholly owned by the Go-ahead Group who also own Southeastern railways and should, by now, have come to understand the distinct differences between a breach of contract charge and one purportedly issued within the terms of the railway byelaws.

Unfortunately the OP has already appealed and stated he was the driver.

Guys_Dad

Forget bye laws as you have admitted being driver.

From your post, it seems that bad bay marking and signage are your key points. But I would advise photographs to back up your appeal.

In addition, don't forget authority/contract appeal point and if the Beavis result is delivered soon and in his favour, then extortionate charges is the other point.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for 'METEOR POPLA' or 'NCP POPLA' (a fairly similar firm & ticket) to find other examples... but you can't use anything about the POFA or keeper liability which is a shame.

Post your draft cobbled together from other ones here first, for advice on how to improve it on this thread - and try to not use one that's older than 2014/15 because POPLA appeals on here have got better and better with time.

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

Given the above it would be unwise to appeal against the charge until a Notice to Keeper arrives with the registered keeper. Were you to appeal before that how would the keeper have become aware if they didn't have the original PCN in their hand?

Obviously by the driver handing the windscreen ticket to the keeper. After the driver is slapped with an unwarranted £100 'fine' isn't it only natural that they produce the ticket & rant to the keeper about the inequity of it all? The keeper is likely to be their spouse/child/parent who gave them permission to use the car in the first place.

The current advice as per the Sticky is for the keeper to appeal the windscreen notice. Here is an extract from the Sticky.

Windscreen tickets:

The latest advice is, in the case of AOS MEMBERS ONLY, appeal online or by email at around day 20 after a windscreen ticket but as the KEEPER, not driver, using the template below. NOTE: the appeal deadline is NOT 14 days, please re-read your PCN if you think it is! The reason for waiting 3 weeks is to not appeal too soon as if you are the driver and secondly, to engage them in the appeals process at a time when they should also be posting a Notice to Keeper. Many PPCs forget the NTK when replying to an appeal and if you appeal as 'keeper' then the very fact a PPC then forgets to send you a NTK by day 56, gives you a slam-dunk winning point at POPLA stage! Don't forget it, make sure you take note of whether any NTK is ever received.

bod1467

parkuphere wrote: »

:spam:

Click that button folks!

Truck75

Dear all, thanks so much for taking the time to comment on this an lend your support, your sage words are very much appreciated.


I have searched through the other posts, found the appeal below and changed it to fit my circumstances, I need to revisit the car park and check the signs and take some more photos, but this is my first draft which I would appreciate any feedback on.


The PCN was issued on 10 September and the appeal rejection letter is dated 3 October 15. 28 days would be 31 October to submit this??


I have watered down the driver point following Nigelbb post, do you think I should leave this in?? section 6 refers






Dear POPLA Assessor,
As the registered keeper of the vehicle above I am appealing against the parking charge above. Below are my grounds for non-liability and I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1) No standing or authority to neither pursue charges or form contracts with drivers. Meteor 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 license 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.


Meteor are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. 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) The visual evidence of the alleged contravention provided supports a claim that my vehicle is parked in what appears to be a genuine space surrounded by lines that indicate a parking bay, albeit the lines are faded. There is no signage at the bay location indicating that parking is permied in this bay as there is clearly displayed at other bays in the car park. In this case the onus surely falls to Meteor to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the claimed breach of their terms and conditions took place. Payment was made and no contravention occurred.

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge did not fall under the category of a GPEOL on the following points:

i. The correct charge for the period in question, which was paid in full, was £7.50, which was valid until the following day. The parking contravention charge of £90 is out of all proportion to any potential loss on the part of Meteor and therefore does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

ii. 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. 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.

4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge being claimed by Meteor 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.”

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. Meteor require strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to a persons 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 between Meteor and the driver.
There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.


The appeal rejection states:

“strictly prohibited for a vehicle to park in any other area then within a single marked space specifically designated for parking. If you fail to adhere to these terms and conditions a Parking Charge Notice will be fixed to your vehicle”.

The main sign says ‘failure to display a valid ticket may result in you receiving a parking charge notice.’ The driver did not contravene the sign which says nothing readable about any other contraventions at all. The only noticeable risk of getting a PCN is for not displaying a ticket, nothing else. 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 (on the opposite side of the car park) when entering the station platform area, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Meteor have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.

6) Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability

Sites designated as Railways by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050.


The driver has not been identified, I have made representations as the registered keeper at the appeal stage, but for the avoidance of doubt was not the driver, I merely made representations on behalf of the driver, I therefore cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If Meteor argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the Railway is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon Meteor to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.


Meteor have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper. It has been completely omitted, Meteor appear to have assumed it is not needed when a keeper sends reps against a windscreen ticket. But in the schedule it is clear that a NTK is a fundamental document where the Operator does not know who the driver was (and in this case there have been no admissions on that matter.) Therefore even if this was a site where byelaws affecting parking did not take precedence, Meteor have failed to establish keeper liability by forgetting the NTK.

I request that my appeal is upheld and that POPLA inform Meteor accordingly that their speculative invoice must be cancelled


Thank you for your attention
Yours faithfully,