Met Parking is trying to rob me.

The_Naked_Ape

To Redx and the Deep& Coupon Mad,

As requested I finally got the copy of my parking agreement it is dated 18th 12th 2000 will this still qualify? There is not much there and nothing that I can recognize stating that 'I Must' display a valid permit, The only problem is that I do not know how to upload the files to you for your attention.
So I will try to upload them elseware and send a hyperlink -

The links failed please advise how to send the parking agreement for your attention.



Thank you all.

The Naked Ape

The_Naked_Ape

To Redx and the Deep& Coupon Mad,

As requested I finally got the copy of my parking agreement it is dated 18th 12th 2000 will this still qualify? There is not much there and nothing that I can recognize stating that 'I Must' display a valid permit, The only problem is that I do not know how to upload the files to you for your attention.
So I will try to upload them elseware and send a hyperlink -

The links failed please advise how to send the parking agreement for your attention.



Thank you all.

The Naked Ape

Coupon-mad

Of course your tenancy agreement takes priority. And you have already paid for rental of that parking space and are covered by various consumer laws as well as case law which supports you.

Did you read the lovely 'Jopson' transcript itself, the Judge's words from the hearing, as posted in post #12 for you?

Remember that MET don't even do court. Honestly you can relax. Tell us what arrives after this letter but stop thinking you have to do something; you don't, just ignore these two letters:

Today I received two letters from Met Parking both with large red boxes demanding £100 (each!) With the following writing -

Dear MR ...
We note the above charge remains outstanding. Please can you ensure the charge is paid in full within 14 days of the date of this letter to avoid the matter escalating through the instruction of solicitors/debt recovery agents to secure immediate payment or the issuing of court proceedings.
Further information including how to pay, the right to appeal etc. can be found on the reverse of the notice.
Please be advised that the independent appeal service, POPLA, is no longer available and that payment of this notice will close the case on our records and also close our formal appeals process.
Correspondence received after a case is closed may not be replied to.

The_Naked_Ape

As requested by a few members I have recently been sent a copy of my original parking agreement from my housing trust. (13/12/2000)

on the first page it gives the name of the trust then states,

Parking spaces Licence registration form.

Area of parking -

Commencement date -

Weekly Charge -

My name -

My reference -

My address -

Signature of user - unsigned

Signature of witness - unsigned

Authorised by -signed and dated 13/12/2000




(Then on the next page.)


"The Trusts Name"

Reserved Parking Spaces

Terms of licence and rules.



1) The charge inclusive of rates for a reserved parking space on the estate is set out overleaf.

2) The charge is due weekly "in advance" to cover the period Monday morning to Sunday night, but for the Trust's tenant a is payable fortnightly with rent.

3) Notice to terminate the licence shall be one week on either side, but the Trust reserves the right to withdraw parking facilities on any part of the estate at its discretion and without notice.

4) Subletting or assignment is prohibited.

5) No nuisance or unnecessary noise shall be made and the parking space must not be used for any commercial purpose. Maintenance and repairs may only be carried out on the parking space if they do not cause annoyance to residents on the estate. Oil must not be allowed to fall onto the yards surface. At night cars must be driven and doors closed as quietly as possible.

6) A Key to the estate gate will be supplied to the licensee of each parking space. These remain the property of the Trust, and must be returned upon termination of the licence. Repayments for keys lost or mislaid will be charged for at £1.00 each

7) Vehicles are parked and driven on the estate entirely at the licensee’s own risk and the trust can accept no responsibility for any damage to or by a licensee’s vehicle howsoever caused.

8) The greatest care must be exercised driving across the estate yard where small children may be playing. The road exists near the parking space will be used. Care is particularly important when reversing.

9) The estate gates must be kept Closed and locked except when opened for the passage of the vehicle, or by the Trust's staff.

10) Parking facilities on the estate are limited and only vehicles with a valid excise License will be permitted to occupy parking spaces. If the superintendent reports that the vehicles are driven in a manner liable to be dangerous, or that the gates were left open the licence may be terminated forthwith.



Also in my Trusts Tenancy agreement article 19 for "Car Parking" it say's

Not to park motor cars or motor cycles or any other vehicles belonging to or driven by a tenant or his/her household upon the Estate except in authorised positions and upon conditions laid down by the Trust. The Tennant shall do his or her best to prevent unauthorised parking by visitors to their premises.

There is nothing else in the tenancy agreement about parking or about displaying permits.

Do I have rights in regards to my case?

Thank you.

The_Naked_Ape

I just received a reply from POPLA


Your parking charge appeal against MET Parking Services.

We have now received MET Parking Services’s case file. If you have not received your copy then please contact MET Parking Services directly.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.

Any comments that you make after this time may not be considered as part of the appeal process.

Once this time has passed we will progress the appeal for assessment. We will let you know when this happens.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team


Below is what MET parking sent me minus my peronal details and photos which I am unable to upload.


Section A

Case Summary and Rules/Conditions
Location

Peabody Court
NW1

Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site – these terms can be seen on the
photograph of the sign attached in Section E
 Permit holders only
 Vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all
times
 Visitors must be parked within marked visitor bays and be clearly displaying a valid
visitor permit face up in the front windscreen at all times
 Vehicles must be parked within marked bays where available and not park in such
a way as to cause obstruction to others
 Vehicles parked in marked disabled bays must clearly display a valid disabled
badge and a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times.
Case Summary
The charge notice was issued for failing to display a valid permit.
This car park is managed using Parking Attendants.
Peabody Court is located in a controlled parking zone and as a result there is a
high volume of abuse from motorists who are parking on the site to visit other
establishments.
There are 20 signs in total in this car park which state the terms and conditions of
parking in this car park. The entrance sign measures 600mm x 800mm and all other
signs measure 600 x 450mm. All signs are made using Correx.
At 07:13 on 29th September vehicle VA06MYM was observed parked in the car park
without displaying a valid permit. At 07:24 the parking attendant issued a charge notice,
AB44465.
On 30th September we received an appeal from the driver:
Mr Hill
Peabody Court

London
NW1

The grounds of his appeal were that he was unaware he had to contact MET Parking for
a permit renewal. He also states that there are other vehicles in the car park that have
never received a parking charge notice despite contravening.
The appeals team investigated the appeal by reference to:
 The terms and conditions as clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed
around the car park, including that vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face
up in the front windscreen at all times;
 The photographic evidence that demonstrated there was no valid permit in the
windscreen;
 The decision tree agreed with our client.
On completing their investigations the appeals team sent a letter to Mr Hill on the 30th
September explaining that his appeal had been refused and why.


In his appeal to POPLA Mr Hill states:
1. When his permit expired, Mr Hill was convinced it would automatically be
reissued.
It is clearly stated on the back of all permits that ‘responsibility for applying for a
renewal of the permit rests with the holder’, please see the front and back of a
permit below. It remains the responsibility of the permit holder to check such
instructions and to comply with them. Even if Mr Hill had not read the instructions
on the back of the permit, the terms and conditions of parking on the site are
clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrances to and around
the car park, these include that vehicles must display a valid permit face up in the
front windscreen at all times. If Mr Hill knew his permit was due to expire on the
09/08/2016, it is his responsibility to ensure that he renews it and if unsure how
to, he should contact the relevant parties to find out. MET’s phone number is
included on the signs around the site so in addition to being able to contact the
housing association he could have contacted us.
The photographic evidence in Section E demonstrates that the permit displayed in
the windscreen of Mr Hill’s vehicle had expired, and Mr Hill has acknowledged that
he had not renewed his permit, therefore there was no valid permit displayed.


-- Front of permit
Back of permit --
2. He wishes to pay £1 in respect of the charge notice as opposed to the charge
notice value of £100.
Whilst Mr Hill relates the value of the charge notice to the cost of a visitor’s permit
this does not reflect the cost of issuing the charge notice and managing the parking
area. The value of the charge notice has been set to recover the above costs and
also to act in part to deter abuse.

The charge does not of itself need to represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
arising from the specific parking event. The County Court, The Court of Appeal and
The Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis considered in great detail
whether the value of a parking charge notice needed to represent a genuine preestimate
of loss and the enforceability of charge notices in respect of this and also
in respect of consumer protection legislation. All 3 courts held that that a parking
charge need not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The County Court held
that the charge notice was enforceable as it was commercially justifiable because
it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. This
principle and the value of the charge notice was tested subsequently in both the
Court of Appeal and The Supreme Court, The Supreme Court concluded that:
“…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both Parking Eye and the landowners had a
legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the
recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient
management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of Parking Eye
was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate
scheme plus a profit margin.

Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to
practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this
particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” In this instance we
maintain that the signage is clear, prominently displayed and visible during hours
of darkness and daylight and the value of charge is in the region of the charge
deemed neither extravagant nor unconscionable by The Supreme Court.
Summary.

The terms and conditions are clearly stated on the 20 signs prominently displayed at the
entrance to and around the car park, including that vehicles must clearly display a valid
permit face up in the front windscreen at all times. Mr Hill has acknowledged that he did
not renew his permit therefore there was no valid permit displayed in his front
windscreen and the charge notice was issued correctly. In light of the above we believe
the appeal should be refused.
Section B
Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”)
Original Charge Notice


My argument is that I have always been paying for my permit my payments are by direct debit and in advance which has never stopped, I have always been in MY parking bay and my car has always been taxed, insured and MOT'd.
Previously permits were sent out by our other provider or the Trust, I have always believed that this was the case.
Now Met are telling my trust that they sent me a letter which is a lie they have never sent me anything of the sort they never mentioned this once to me I only found this out by speaking to a senior housing manager.
This is causing my untold grief my partner says just pay them the £200 but its a matter of priciple why should I pay for something I am and have been paying for thoughout.

Thanks again guy's.

TW1234

"3) Notice to terminate the licence shall be one week on either side, but the Trust reserves the right to withdraw parking facilities on any part of the estate at its discretion and without notice"

Has the Trust terminated your licence?Could the parking company provide evidence that the Trust has done so?
If not, they cannot impose additional parking conditions upon you when using your allocated space and would not succeed at court.

Coupon-mad

Yes you clearly have rights to park in that agreement you showed us and there is nothing about displaying a permit nor paying any 'parking charge' nor even any risk of it, nor any requirement to read any terms on any signs at all.

I'd go as far as to say, you surely have primacy of contract there. It is VERY clear! You've also been there 16 years.

Remember that MET don't even do court. Honestly you can relax. Tell us what arrives.

However:

I have searched your thread and NOWHERE can I see that we knew you had got your POPLA code in the end, nor that you had submitted a POPLA appeal...I am concerned you are about to lose at POPLA because we don't know what you submitted or if you even researched it and used the forum templates.

Surely you didn't just say this sort of weak begging appeal to POPLA, please say you didn't:

''My argument is that I have always been paying for my permit my payments are by direct debit and in advance which has never stopped, I have always been in MY parking bay and my car has always been taxed, insured and MOT'd.
Previously permits were sent out by our other provider or the Trust, I have always believed that this was the case.
Now Met are telling my trust that they sent me a letter which is a lie they have never sent me anything of the sort they never mentioned this once to me I only found this out by speaking to a senior housing manager.
This is causing my untold grief my partner says just pay them the £200 but its a matter of priciple why should I pay for something I am and have been paying for thoughout.''

That is NOT a winning POPLA appeal, but hey ho, when you lose it doesn't matter. We have already told you nothing will happen.

It is not causing 'untold grief, come on. Nothing will happen. Your partner would be a mug to even think of paying MET 20p let alone £100 or £200. If they ever tried a small claim it's no big deal but you would need to listen to our advice and not fire stuff off without checking though! Totally likely to be winnable in court with that agreement and your 16 year leasehold rights established.

So, just tell us what you submitted to POPLA and tell us when you win or lose at POPLA. Doesn't matter. DO NOT PAY.

The_Naked_Ape

I sent 2 emails to the trust in regards to this a few days ago I got a vague answer back it looks like they have never canelled my parking agreement and that it is still in effect.

please see below -


Dear Mr H,

Thank you for your email and my apologies for the late response to your earlier email.

I am sorry to note that your parking appeal has been refused and I can confirm that you are currently assigned parking bay no XX.

As you remain dissatisfied with the outcome, you can appeal the parking contractor’s decision through the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) online process (https://www.popla.org.uk).

I would also like to wish you seasonal greetings and please do not hesitate to contact your interim Neighbourhood Manager, Jon Javier should you require any further assistance.

Kind regards
A

(I mentioned it was a bit vague as the email that I sent see below)

Hello Mr A, I hope you are in good health,

This is Mr H from -,
I am contacting you in regards to Met Parking, as you are aware I have been contesting the two fines they put on my car see the email I sent you on the 15th of the 11th (titled Met parking harassing residents) I have always stated that I believe that I have done nothing wrong, my car has always been road worthy, Tax, Insured & MOT'd. It has always been parked in the correct paid bay and payments have always been made in advance by direct debit.
I have stated for the record that in the past permits were sent out to residents by either Peabody or the company. I believed that this was the case and was awaiting delivery of permit, they did not and they did not make any attempt to contact me.
When we spoke a few weeks ago you told me that MET said that they told you that they sent me a letter I told you then that they had never been in contact with me prior to issuing me a ticket and they have never made any mention of this to me.
I see MET as using paying residents as cash cows for inconsistencies in paper-work, Had I not been paying for my parking space I would agree that I was in the wrong but this is not the case.
To add insult to injury they not only fined once but had the audacity to remove the previous ticket to fine me again.

I was wondering if you could answer me one quick question relating to my parking agreement 'please see attached' in heading three "Notice to terminate the licence shall be one week's notice either side, but the trust reserves the right to withdraw parking facilities on any part of the estate at its discretion and without notice."

Has the Trust terminated my licence? if so when? (I do need this to help my appeal process.)

Thank you for your time.

Mr H


So it appears that my parking agreement is still in effect and has not been cancelled.

Does this help?

The_Naked_Ape

thank you coupon-mad,

in regards to the POPLA outcome please see below -


POPLA assessment and decision
14/12/2016
Verification Code

386320XXXX

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name xxxxxxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not display a valid permit

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he was not parked in contravention of the parking conditions and the operator is using residents as cash cows.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I feel it is appropriate to comment on the new grounds for appeal raised in his comments on the operator’s case file. When we invited the appellant to make comments about the operator’s case file, this was not an opportunity for him to raise new grounds for appeal or provide any new evidence. As such, I cannot consider any of the grounds for appeal raised in his motorist’s comments and will instead base my report on the grounds for appeal raised when he submitted the appeal and any evidence provided at that point

The terms and conditions of the site state “Permit holder only, vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times, if your contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use, you will be charges as follows £100 parking charge”.

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist because no valid ticket, voucher or permit was displayed. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle VXX XXX, At the said address, on 29 September 2016. A MET Parking Services permit has been displayed; however, the expiry date is 9 August 2016. In his submission, the appellant has raised several grounds of appeal; I will address each in turn.

The appellant states that he was not parked in contravention of the parking conditions in force, as his vehicle was taxed, MOT’d, insured and he was waiting for a new pemit. He was parked in his bay that he pays for. I acknowledge the appellants comments, however, as mentioned previously the appellant was parked displaying a permit which had expired, as such, he was not displaying a valid permit. In addition the appellant states that the operator is using residents as cash cows in regards to parking enforcement.

The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions of this particular car park. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site by not displaying a valid permit. As such, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

hope this helps.

Coupon-mad

As predicted:

I have searched your thread and NOWHERE can I see that we knew you had got your POPLA code in the end, nor that you had submitted a POPLA appeal...I am concerned you are about to lose at POPLA because we don't know what you submitted or if you even researched it and used the forum templates.

So, same advice as the other two POPLA loss threads today (and next time ask us to help with the wording, that's what we do!). See the Horizon and CEL threads about lost POPLA appeals. All three did NOT get our advice on their POPLA draft... Doh!

No need to pay, as already stated:

hey ho, when you lose it doesn't matter. We have already told you nothing will happen.

It is not causing 'untold grief, come on. Nothing will happen. Your partner would be a mug to even think of paying MET 20p let alone £100 or £200. If they ever tried a small claim it's no big deal but you would need to listen to our advice and not fire stuff off without checking though! Totally likely to be winnable in court with that agreement and your 16 year leasehold rights established.

So... tell us when you win or lose at POPLA. Doesn't matter. DO NOT PAY.

OK, so now relax. No-one is coming round to nick your car or clamp your front door!