Please Help Met Parking charge Notice for McDonalds Gatwick South

Coupon-mad

Your POPLA code sounds like it will still work on the POPLA website, certainly if it's **631*6*** which which not yet be 28 days old. Test it by putting it in but not actualy filling in the next page:

https://popla.co.uk/appeal#/StartAppeal/Index

Is it '631*6' in the middle? If so they are wrong to tell you it's too late.

You can find template POPLA appeal points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. As for photos, what about those on this thread:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?81513-Mcdonalds-Gatwick-Parking-Fine-MET

HTH

mrs_boop

Hi Guys,
I am in abit of a mess, trying to do my popla appeal. I think I am overthinking it.

Can I ask- The notice to hirer states what they have to send me. The 1st ntk went to the hire company, I then received a copy of the letter and my hire agreement---I presumed the Hire company had sent me this. Then about 2 weeks later I got the notice to hirer just a letter no photos etc. So do you think that it was the hire company who sent me this, I will have to dig it out and take a look but i just presume it was them else the would have come together. CORRECTION NEXT POST

if i am right and it is the hire company who sent it then i can appeal on this point.

This is what i am worried about i have copied and pasted and read so much information, to do with signs etc but how can i appeal on there signage if i simply did not see it???? i did take a look at google images and could see that as you entered mcdonald's there was a curve to the right to go threw the drive through so you would be looking on your right as they are thin lanes and also the buiding is on the right but the sign i could see was on the left so i don't think you would notice it because you would be looking in a different direction. they were on the carpark as well but as i said we did not notice them and did not even know they did this

I am also going for grace periods as i was over by 12 minutes. but again the grace period is to park up and read the signs - so if i am saying i did not see the signs how can i appeal grace periods.

Also how can i appeal these points if we are saying we don't know who the driver was - because if we appeal these points arn't we saying we were there at the time of the offence??

i want them to know that we were both distraught at the time as we had said goodbye to our daughter who is 20 and never been away from us and was traveling alone to a different country. i never even knew tha mc donalsd had parking times in place. we would not have stopped there for the extra time if we knew the consequences- if you know what i mean.

if i appeal on the two points i.e. nth and grace periods, i could also say as part of my disability that i cannot eat as fast as others as i have dysphasia so i have to eat small bites and drink and wait for the food to go down as it gets lodged.

i have looked at some of the popla appeals and noticed lots of evidence. i only have the letters they have sent me, parts i have taken off pofa 2012 and some evidence taken from the BPA website about grace periods. Do you think this will be enough as i know once it is sent you cannot add more points. but if i do add about apr cameras, signage, agreements on the land issue, and about the money and proving they are asking too much for 12 extra mins (sorry can't think of the correct term).

Your help would be much appreciated as I am getting in abit of a tizzy, I am not well myself, my mom has fractured her back so I am taking care of her like i should do as she is the most important thing, I am not idle and trying my best, I am just getting confused I can add the information if needed although it is not written correctly yet.

Thank you guys

mrs_boop

i have dug them all out.

the first letter i received was from the hire company asking for £42 as an admin charge invoice attached to it was our hire agreement highlighted on certain parts, and then a photocopy in black and white of the PCN sent to them this was dated 13/09/2016.

I then received a letter from MET about the pcn, this was on the 18/09/2016

then my refusal to appeal on 19/10/2016 with no popla code as you already i had a game to get it.

then on 23/11/2016 a demand for £100 overdue

Edna_Basher

mrs_boop wrote: »

I then received a letter from MET about the pcn, this was on the 18/09/2016

I suspect that this will have been MET's Notice to Hirer. Does it begin by saying "On the date and time detailed above this vehicle was recorded as breaching those terms and conditions which those entering the above site agree to be bound by"?

MET’s Notices to Hirer are rubbish; they include no photographic evidence and don’t even specify the alleged entry and exit times from the car park*.


* you'll need to check to see if this is still the case.

Here’s some suggested words to set you on your way with your POPLA submission. This will need to be uploaded to POPLA’s website as a PDF copy. I suggest that you also upload a copy of MET’s Notice to Hirer just so that the POPLA assessor can see just how rubbish this really is.


Dear Sir,

POPLA Ref 386xxxxxxx - Vehicle Registration [AA11AAA]
MET Parking Services Limited: Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxxxx]

I write to lodge details of my dispute with MET Parking Services Limited (“the Operator”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me as a Notice to Hirer in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at McDonald’s Gatwick South on [Date of Parking Incident]. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s hirer for the purpose of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1. The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of POFA and consequently it has forfeited its right under POFA to hold the hirer liable for the charge.
2. The Operator has provided no clear evidence that a breach even took place.
3. The Operator has not allowed a reasonable grace period as required under the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice.
4. The Operator does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
5. The Operator’s car park signage was inadequate.
6. ........ [Insert other points as required]

1) The Operator’s Notice to Hirer failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). For the avoidance of doubt, the Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.

I include with this submission a copy of the Operator’s Notice to Hirer to demonstrate other points of failure to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 14(5) including:

• Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(a) the Operator’s PCN did not inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the Notice to Keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
• Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(b) the Operator’s PCN did not refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper;
• Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(c) the Operator’s PCN did not warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under Paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

Indeed, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer makes no reference whatsoever to POFA.

Through its complete failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim is invalid.

2) The Operator has provided no evidence that the alleged breach even took place.

On its Notice to Hirer, the Operator claimed that the charge was issued because the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than allowed. The Operator has not provided me with any evidence to support this claim; for example the Operator’s Notice to Hirer contained no photographic evidence. Indeed, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer does not even specify the length of the alleged overstay.

I put the Operator to strict proof to demonstrate that the alleged breach took place.

3) The Operator may not have allowed a sufficiently reasonable grace period as required under the BPA Code of Practice

The Operator is obliged to operate in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. With regard to grace periods, this Code of Practice stipulates the following:

Paragraph 13.2: you should allow the driver a reasonable “grace period” in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

Paragraph 13.4: you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Although Paragraph 13.2 does not specify what constitutes a “reasonable grace period” for a motorist to decide whether to stay or go, this grace period begins when the vehicle passes the ANPR camera at the car park entrance and must cover:

• the time to drive into the car park and locate a parking space
• the time to manoeuvre the vehicle into the parking space (once a space has been located)
• the time for a driver to locate and walk to the nearest car park sign to the parking space
• the time taken to read and understand all of the conditions contained on the car park sign; this includes having to read all of the “small print” on the sign.

The BPA Code of Practice considers it reasonable to apply a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes for a motorist to leave the car park at the end of the parking contract (i.e. for the motorist to get into their vehicle, manoeuvre out of the parking space and drive out of the car park).

Given that more processes are involved in the period before the parking contract is formed (e.g. finding a parking space, locating a car park sign and then reading and understanding the terms on the sign), it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period before the establishment of the parking contact must be more than the minimum of the 10 minutes specified by the BPA Code of Practice as the grace period after the parking contract has ended. Thus the overall grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice must be more than 20 minutes.

The Operator’s Notice to Hirer does not specify the duration of the alleged overstay; however, if it transpires that this was 20 minutes or less then POPLA may reasonably determine that the Operator was in breach of the BPA Code of Practice and that it should have taken care to calibrate its system in order to avoid PCNs being generated in cases of overstays of 20 minutes or less.

4) The Operator does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.

5) The Operator’s car park signage was inadequate.

[You can pick up appeal points for 4) and 5) from Coupon-mad’s templates on the POPLA decisions thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that POPLA confirms its agreement with me that the Operator has no valid claim and that its invoice should be cancelled and credited in full.


Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

i want them to know that we were both distraught at the time as we had said goodbye to our daughter who is 20 and never been away from us and was traveling alone to a different country.

No, you don't. It's none of their business and if you write that or 'I didn't see any signs' you will unpick ALL the good work done by Edna Basher.

As he says, #4 and #5 come from the templates in the NEWBIES thread (post #3 of it) but DON'T add your own version of events and don't say who was driving. No need to get in a tizzy, Edna Basher has written most of what you need and three more points can come from our forum templates.

I would add for #6, another template from the NEWBIES thread post #3, the one that says the operator has not shown that the appellant is the person liable (driver) since they have very clearly failed to comply with the POFA for hirer/keeper liability.

Show us what it all looks like.

This will be a word document with the POPLA code at the top, that you save as a PDF then upload it to POPLA under 'other'. DO NOT tick any other choices, not 'I didn't see the signs, nothing like that. Just 'OTHER' and ignore the warning that POPLA say about that option being less successful (the BPA appear to have written that for POPLA before this service even started...so take it with a big pinch of salt). Just put in the usual POPLA boxes, your name and address, PCN and VRN (put zeros for your phone number!) and make sure the appeal PDF is uploaded and turns into a little 'bin' icon before you submit (after we've checked the final version).

mrs_boop

I cannot thank Edna Basher and Coupon Mad enough you truly are my guardian angels. I was getting really stressed about it, which makes my condition worse and like i said my homelife is a bit full on at the moment with helping to look after my mom.

I really do appreciate everything you guys have done for me. I could not have done this without you. I have to go to my moms today so I will take a look at the points you raised when I come home.

Again thank you soooooooooooooooo Much

Kindest Regards

mrs_boop

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Email the BPA to complain immediately:

aos@britishparking.co.uk

So is your POPLA code one with the numbers 2..6 in the middle or 3..6?

And a plea to other posters: no-one has to refer to any POPLA code checker to suss the date of issue of a POPLA code.

I will email them, thank you

mrs_boop

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Your POPLA code sounds like it will still work on the POPLA website, certainly if it's **631*6*** which which not yet be 28 days old. Test it by putting it in but not actualy filling in the next page:

https://popla.co.uk/appeal#/StartAppeal/Index

Is it '631*6' in the middle? If so they are wrong to tell you it's too late.

You can find template POPLA appeal points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. As for photos, what about those on this thread:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?81513-Mcdonalds-Gatwick-Parking-Fine-MET

HTH

Yes it is that popla code 631*6, devious !!!!!!s art they !!!!!!

I also took a look at the link, there is a met sign for 60 mins not sure if it was for gatwick, and would i just put the pic in as evidence do i need to put any writing by it

Thank you

mrs_boop

edna_basher wrote: »

i suspect that this will have been met's notice to hirer. Does it begin by saying "on the date and time detailed above this vehicle was recorded as breaching those terms and conditions which those entering the above site agree to be bound by"? yes it does start like this

met’s notices to hirer are rubbish; they include no photographic evidence and don’t even specify the alleged entry and exit times from the car park*. there is no photos' of times


* you'll need to check to see if this is still the case.

here’s some suggested words to set you on your way with your popla submission. This will need to be uploaded to popla’s website as a pdf copy. I suggest that you also upload a copy of met’s notice to hirer just so that the popla assessor can see just how rubbish this really is.


dear sir,

popla ref 386xxxxxxx - vehicle registration [aa11aaa]
met parking services limited: Parking charge notice [xxxxxxxx]

i write to lodge details of my dispute with met parking services limited (“the operator”) in respect of the above-detailed parking charge notice (“pcn”) issued to me as a notice to hirer in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at mcdonald’s gatwick south on [date of parking incident]. I confirm that i am the vehicle’s hirer for the purpose of the protection of freedoms act 2012 (“pofa”).

i set out below why i am not liable for this parking charge:

1. the operator failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of pofa and consequently it has forfeited its right under pofa to hold the hirer liable for the charge.
2. the operator has provided no clear evidence that a breach even took place.
3. the operator has not allowed a reasonable grace period as required under the british parking association ltd (“bpa”) code of practice.
4. the operator does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
5. the operator’s car park signage was inadequate.
6. ........ [insert other points as required]

1) the operator’s notice to hirer failed to meet the strict requirements of pofa

in order to rely upon pofa to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a notice to hirer in full compliance with pofa’s strict requirements. In this instance, the operator’s notice to hirer did not comply.

the relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of schedule 4 of pofa with the conditions that the creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in paragraph 14.

paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a notice to hirer within the relevant period, the creditor must also provide the hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the notice to keeper (i.e. The notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as registered keeper)). For the avoidance of doubt, the operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.

i include with this submission a copy of the operator’s notice to hirer to demonstrate other points of failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph 14(5) including:

• contrary to the requirements of paragraph 14(5)(a) the operator’s pcn did not inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
• contrary to the requirements of paragraph 14(5)(b) the operator’s pcn did not refer the hirer to the information contained in the notice to keeper;
• contrary to the requirements of paragraph 14(5)(c) the operator’s pcn did not warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

indeed, the operator’s notice to hirer makes no reference whatsoever to pofa.

through its complete failure to deliver a compliant notice to hirer, the operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, popla may determine that the operator’s claim is invalid.

2) the operator has provided no evidence that the alleged breach even took place.

on its notice to hirer, the operator claimed that the charge was issued because the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than allowed. The operator has not provided me with any evidence to support this claim; for example the operator’s notice to hirer contained no photographic evidence. indeed, the operator’s notice to hirer does not even specify the length of the alleged overstay.

i put the operator to strict proof to demonstrate that the alleged breach took place.

3) the operator may not have allowed a sufficiently reasonable grace period as required under the bpa code of practice

the operator is obliged to operate in accordance with the bpa code of practice. With regard to grace periods, this code of practice stipulates the following:

paragraph 13.2: You should allow the driver a reasonable “grace period” in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

paragraph 13.4: You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

although paragraph 13.2 does not specify what constitutes a “reasonable grace period” for a motorist to decide whether to stay or go, this grace period begins when the vehicle passes the anpr camera at the car park entrance and must cover:

• the time to drive into the car park and locate a parking space
• the time to manoeuvre the vehicle into the parking space (once a space has been located)
• the time for a driver to locate and walk to the nearest car park sign to the parking space
• the time taken to read and understand all of the conditions contained on the car park sign; this includes having to read all of the “small print” on the sign.

the bpa code of practice considers it reasonable to apply a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes for a motorist to leave the car park at the end of the parking contract (i.e. For the motorist to get into their vehicle, manoeuvre out of the parking space and drive out of the car park).

given that more processes are involved in the period before the parking contract is formed (e.g. Finding a parking space, locating a car park sign and then reading and understanding the terms on the sign), it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period before the establishment of the parking contact must be more than the minimum of the 10 minutes specified by the bpa code of practice as the grace period after the parking contract has ended. Thus the overall grace period required under the bpa code of practice must be more than 20 minutes.

the operator’s notice to hirer does not specify the duration of the alleged overstay; however, if it transpires that this was 20 minutes or less then popla may reasonably determine that the operator was in breach of the bpa code of practice and that it should have taken care to calibrate its system in order to avoid pcns being generated in cases of overstays of 20 minutes or less.

4) the operator does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.

5) the operator’s car park signage was inadequate.

[you can pick up appeal points for 4) and 5) from coupon-mad’s templates on the popla decisions thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

based upon the above-detailed representations, i respectfully request that popla confirms its agreement with me that the operator has no valid claim and that its invoice should be cancelled and credited in full.


yours faithfully,

thank you for all your help

mrs_boop

SORRY FOR ABOVE POST, I WAS TRYING TO GET COCKY AND USE THE QUOTE BUTTON BUT IT DIDN'T WORK

Originally Posted by edna basher View Post
i suspect that this will have been met's notice to hirer. Does it begin by saying "on the date and time detailed above this vehicle was recorded as breaching those terms and conditions which those entering the above site agree to be bound by"? yes it does start like this

met’s notices to hirer are rubbish; they include no photographic evidence and don’t even specify the alleged entry and exit times from the car park*. there is no photos' of times


* you'll need to check to see if this is still the case.

Yes it did start with this and there was no photos or times.



I could not find this ;
I would add for #6, another template from the NEWBIES thread post #3, the one that says the operator has not shown that the appellant is the person liable (driver) since they have very clearly failed to comply with the POFA for hirer/keeper liability.


This is it so far - how does it look and should i add the extra info

Dear Sir,

POPLA Ref 386xxxxxxx - Vehicle Registration [AA11AAA]
MET Parking Services Limited: Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxxxx]

I write to lodge details of my dispute with MET Parking Services Limited (“the Operator”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me as a Notice to Hirer in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at McDonald’s Gatwick South on [01/09/2016]. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s hirer for the purpose of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of POFA and consequently it has forfeited its right under POFA to hold the hirer liable for the charge.

The Operator has provided no clear evidence that a breach even took place.

The Operator has not allowed a reasonable grace period as required under the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice.

The Operator does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.

The Operator’s car park signage was inadequate.












1) The Operator’s Notice to Hirer failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). For the avoidance of doubt, the Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.

I include with this submission a copy of the Operator’s Notice to Hirer to demonstrate other points of failure to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 14(5) including:
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(a) the Operator’s PCN did not inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the Notice to Keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(b) the Operator’s PCN did not refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper;
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(c) the Operator’s PCN did not warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under Paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.
Indeed, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer makes no reference whatsoever to POFA.

Through its complete failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim is invalid.

(I saw this bit on Edna’s post should I add it here or not)
Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver”.

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim against me is invalid.



2) The Operator has provided no evidence that the alleged breach even took place.

On its Notice to Hirer, the Operator claimed that the charge was issued because the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than allowed. The Operator has not provided me with any evidence to support this claim; for example the Operator’s Notice to Hirer contained no photographic evidence. Indeed, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer does not even specify the length of the alleged overstay.

I put the Operator to strict proof to demonstrate that the alleged breach took place.
































3) The Operator may not have allowed a sufficiently reasonable grace period as required under the BPA Code of Practice

The Operator is obliged to operate in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. With regard to grace periods, this Code of Practice stipulates the following:

Paragraph 13.2: you should allow the driver a reasonable “grace period” in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

Paragraph 13.4: you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.


Although Paragraph 13.2 does not specify what constitutes a “reasonable grace period” for a motorist to decide whether to stay or go, this grace period begins when the vehicle passes the ANPR camera at the car park entrance and must cover:


the time to drive into the car park and locate a parking space
the time to manoeuvre the vehicle into the parking space (once a space has been located)
the time for a driver to locate and walk to the nearest car park sign to the parking space
the time taken to read and understand all of the conditions contained on the car park sign; this includes having to read all of the “small print” on the sign.

The BPA Code of Practice considers it reasonable to apply a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes for a motorist to leave the car park at the end of the parking contract (i.e. for the motorist to get into their vehicle, manoeuvre out of the parking space and drive out of the car park).

Given that more processes are involved in the period before the parking contract is formed (e.g. finding a parking space, locating a car park sign and then reading and understanding the terms on the sign), it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period before the establishment of the parking contact must be more than the minimum of the 10 minutes specified by the BPA Code of Practice as the grace period after the parking contract has ended. Thus the overall grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice must be more than 20 minutes.

The Operator’s Notice to Hirer does not specify the duration of the alleged overstay; however, if it transpires that this was 20 minutes or less then POPLA may reasonably determine that the Operator was in breach of the BPA Code of Practice and that it should have taken care to calibrate its system in order to avoid PCNs being generated in cases of overstays of 20 minutes or less.


































The Operator does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).






Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation 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


The Operator’s car park signage was inadequate.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
/ message

sig

Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that POPLA confirms its agreement with me that the Operator has no valid claim and that its invoice should be cancelled and credited in full.


Yours faithfully,


(should I add this) and where?? BECAUSE ON THE BACK OF THE REJECTION LETTER IT STATES
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. You now have a number of options.

1. pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the PCN etc
2. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action.

NO WHERE DO THEY STATE THAT I CAN GO TO POPLA APPEAL (Apart from the fact they didn't orignally give it to me anyway) SO I THOUGHT THE BELOW MIGHT HELP

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Notice of rejection
When a motorist makes their original representations, confusion is still caused when operators do not make completely clear that the recipient of a notice of rejection has the right to appeal and also, just as importantly, that there is a time limit.
There is no exact prescribed form of words but all relevant information should be included. In particular, it should be very obvious to the recipient of the rejection what the veri cation code is. It must never be necessary for the motorist to have to contact the operator for the veri cation code. This must always be supplied with the operator’s rejection of the motorist’s original representations to them.
POPLA still continues to receive requests for a veri cation code when it has not been supplied by the operator, even though a rejection has been issued. A suitable formula for a notice/letter of rejection might be, for example:
If you wish, you can appeal our decision to an independent appeals service, Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). You can do this [using the enclosed form or] online at https://www.popla.org.uk, where you can nd more information about appealing. The veri cation code you will need to appeal this matter to POPLA is 1234567890. Your appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days of the date of this letter.
Operators must continue to be aware that not everyone has access to the internet and may need, or simply choose, to submit a written appeal. An appeal form with the accompanying notes should always be provided if requested. However, for online appeals the full POPLA website address must be given, it
is never appropriate to direct the recipient of a notice of rejection only to the operator’s own web site in order to start the appeal process.
Whilst not incorrect, it would seem somewhat pointless, and clearly out of date, for operators still to be sending notices of rejection which, when referring to appeals to POPLA, begin ‘if your parking charge notice was issued after 1 October 2012’.
Paragraph 22.12 of the current BPA Code of Practice makes clear that if even if the veri cation code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in the dated rejection notice/letter. The above text makes it even clearer.