Met parking charge notice when I visited Mcdonalds twice

Quentin

The problem here is that the OP says in the OP:

hellp wrote: »

Tried to appeal against the pcn giving driver details online and Met are asking for ......

hellp

Sorry about the wording should have said
Tried to appeal against the pcn giving personal details of the registered keeper online....such as name, address, phone number, email.....

hellp

Popla draft so far i have this with help off all.

My name and address

To whom it may concern:

Appeals Ref:************
Popla Code:***********
Site: McDonalds.152 Holyhead Road, Handsworth, Sandwell, B21 0AP

No keeper Liability No breach of contract
I am appealing as the registered keeper in this case, where I have chosen to exercise my right not to identify the driver(s). However, as this case involves TWO visits to this site and on both occasions I was an occupant of the car, I can present an honest witness account of the fact that we visited twice that day. This was stated in two appeals sent to MET, the second one even gave them timings, yet they failed to cancel the wrongly-issued PCN.

I would like MET parking to prove that the car registration ***** was parked at the above site for the amount of time they are claiming.

Paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 4 of the POFA states that:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices each specifying different parts of a single period of parking).

As such, this case fails because there were TWO periods of parking because the car drove out at approx (8:34pm) then returned at approx (11:07pm). Between the two visits the car was at the following address:
..................
There was in fact no breach of contract.
Witness statements attached:

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below a reason why Met parking Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:

(i) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.

ANPR Cameras full of flaws

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768.0

Signage
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

No land owner authority Planning/Advertising consent
According to the Sandwell council's website there is no advertising consent for the signs and no planning permission for the ANPR cameras. I trust that Met parking do not have the correct planning permissions /advertising consent in place for the signage at the particular Mc Donalds Franchise in question, as i am sure you are no doubt aware that any parking company signage not only requires separate planning consent, it also requires advertising consent, failure to have the relevant advertising consent is a criminal offence under regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement)(England) Regulations 2007.

In the face of the evidence and witness statements, and the proven unreliability of ANPR systems, their actions would be unreasonable and I would be seeking compensation under CPR 27 14 (2) (g).
http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/5ipmb-small-claims-costs-cpr-27-14-2-g-question-can.html

Yours faithfully.


Any weak points please so far

The_Deep

If PoPLA fails and they persist you should warn them of the consequences it will have for them.

In the face of your evidence and witness statements, and the proven unreliability of ANPR systems, their actions would be unreasonable and you would be seeking compensation under CPR 27 14 (2) (g).

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/5ipmb-small-claims-costs-cpr-27-14-2-g-question-can.html

Coupon-mad

hellp wrote: »

Popla draft so far i have this with help off coupon_mad,
Site: McDonalds.152 Holyhead Road, Handsworth, Sandwell, B21 0AP
No keeper Liability No breach of contract
I am appealing as the registered keeper in this case, where I have chosen to exercise my right not to identify the driver(s). However, as this case involves TWO visits to this site and on both occasions I was an occupant of the car, I can present an honest witness account of the fact that we visited twice that day. This was stated in two appeals sent to MET, the second one even gave them timings, yet they failed to cancel the wrongly-issued PCN.
I would like met parking to prove that I was parked at the above site for the amount of time they are claiming...
[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 4 of the POFA states that:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices each specifying different parts of a single period of parking).[/FONT]

As such, this case fails because there were TWO periods of parking because the car drove out at approx (8:34pm) then returned at approx (11:07pm). Between the two visits the car was at the following address:
..................
There was in fact no breach of contract.
Witness statements attached:

Is this enough or should i also include:
No advertising consent for the signs and no planning consent for the ANPR cameras.

Nowhere near enough if you mean that's the whole extent of the POPLA appeal. You only have to read any others in the last week or two to see examples of standard other appeal points to include, always.

hellp

thank you The deep for your reply, will add that as well

hellp

Thank you coupon-mad I am adding as I go along with the help off all of you. Thank you again for all the help...:beer:

hellp

[FONT=&quot]Final POPLA draft, can you please check and let us know f any of it needs changing. Thanks in advance....
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My name and address

To whom it may concern:
Vehicle Registration in question:**********
Appeals Ref:************
Popla Code:***********
Site: McDonalds.152 Holyhead Road, Handsworth, Sandwell, B21 0AP

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice MET Parking issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

1) Keeper Liability not established/No Breach of contract - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
2) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
3) Signage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4)No land owner authority Planning/Advertising consent[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) No keeper Liability No breach of contract
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I am appealing as the registered keeper in this case, where I have chosen to exercise my right not to identify the driver(s). However, as this case involves TWO visits to this site and on both occasions I was an occupant of the car, I can present an honest witness account of the fact that we visited twice that day. This was stated in two appeals sent to MET, the second one even gave them timings, yet they failed to cancel the wrongly-issued PCN.

I would like MET parking to prove that the car registration ***** was parked at the above site for the amount of time they are claiming.

Paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 4 of the POFA states that:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices each specifying different parts of a single period of parking).

As such, this case fails because there were TWO periods of parking because the car drove out at approx (8:34pm) then returned at approx (11:07pm). Between the two visits the car was at the following address:
..................
There was in fact no breach of contract.
Witness statement attached:

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below a reason why Met parking Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:

(i) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) ANPR Cameras full of flaws[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use: The following link shows how many others have been affected by this double dip problem: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768.0[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fundamental problem[FONT=&quot]s [/FONT]with MET Parkin[FONT=&quot]g's[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]AN[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]PR systems compounded by their failure to use industry available methods to prevent this happening. Number plates can be misread for many reasons, including good weather, bad weather and ANPR systems inability to cope with the position of number plate fixings. “The most common reason for failure is a close following vehicle which obscures the number plate.”

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require MET parking to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronized with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require MET Parking to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put MET Parking to strict proof to the contrary.

I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA) and the BPA Code of Practice undoubtedly supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) Signage/ No contract with driver[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
I believe that MET parking signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. MET Parking’s unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.
The signs were not visible from a distance and the words are unreadable. I put MET Parking to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park in daylight and in the dark. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Nowhere does it say “No Return within a specific time frame” that you cannot return to the Mcdonalds car park after exiting.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) No land owner authority Planning/Advertising consent[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
I question MET Parking’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park. According to the Sandwell council's website there is no advertising consent for the signs and no planning permission for the ANPR cameras. I trust that Met parking do not have the correct planning permissions /advertising consent in place for the signage at the particular McDonald’s Franchise in question, as I am sure you are no doubt aware that any parking company signage not only requires separate planning consent, it also requires advertising consent, failure to have the relevant advertising consent is a criminal offence under regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement)(England) Regulations 2007.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put MET Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question MET Parking legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither 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 ‘Fine’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that MET Parking is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that MET Parking are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“The written authorization must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I put MET Parking to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the face of the evidence and witness statements, and the proven unreliability of ANPR systems, their actions would be unreasonable and I would be seeking compensation under CPR 27 14 (2) (g).
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/5ipmb-small-claims-costs-cpr-27-14-2-g-question-can.html[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours Sincerely.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence

Typo alert, the noun is a 'licence' in the UK. The 's' is the verb or the US spelling.

Apart from that, it should do fine, make sure you upload it as a PDF and the witness statement(s) too, under 'other' on the POPLA website.

hellp

Thanks Coupon-Mad and the rest of the team for your help with this, appreciate it loads....