MET Parking Services PCN @ McDonalds Heathrow

oldskoolforever

Guys_Dad wrote: »

ANPR? Date printed NtK? Your OP is 21/1/17 but incident 18/12/16, hence my question.

Yes, correct on incident date 18/12/16. I received the original PCN from MET dated 23/12/2016 - although with the Xmas post, I don't think I actually had the PCN until 27/12. I submitted first appeal in writing (which i shouldn't have done), but never heard back which is why i then posted in the forum for advice. I've subsequently submitted the same appeal through their review website and asked them to check records. I had a copy rejection letter in the post, their first one must have been lost. Anyway, they have provided a POPLA code now.

oldskoolforever

Just received the Evidence pack from MET. It is quite a long (35 pages) PDF file. Includes about 35 photos of parking signs from the car park !

Have read the Newbies forum for advice on rebuttal, is it still best to submit a PDF by email, or use the portal ? Another thread seemed to indicate that they aren't even reading the emailed PDFs.

I'm not exactly sure how to layout the rebuttal either, presumably it should be in the same format as my appeal and try to rebut each section ? :

1. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
2. 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
3. BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.
4. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
5. No Driver Liability

oldskoolforever

Here is the Evidence provided against each section from MET :

1.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

MET Parking Services Ltd are contracted by McDonald’s to ensure adherence to the terms and conditions of the car park. Our interest in the land arises from our
obligation to perform our contractual duties by ensuring provision can be made for motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client’s premises.
The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered this point and held that ParkingEye had contracted with the motorist as a principal and not as agent and the contract had been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the motorist parking his car on the site.
We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted contract between ourselves and our client as it contains information which is commercially sensitive and not relevant in this instance. It also extends to more than 20 pages and therefore the volume of redacted information will be significantly greater than the volume of un-redacted and relevant information.
We have however provided the letter of authority, the signature page and front sheet of the contract demonstrating it is the contract referred to in the letter of authority and the clause from the contract that demonstrates this is rolling contract and subsists until terminated.
We note POPLA are often asked to consider whether the contract existed at the date of the contravention and as you can see from the extract from the contract held with McDonald’s this agreement has a commencement date of 31 August 2010 as this was the date it was signed by the client and is agreed for an initial period of 9 months after which point it becomes an ongoing agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We can confirm that neither McDonald’s nor MET Parking have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. Consequently we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that the contract provided adequately proves that MET Parking had sufficient authority to issue parking charges on the land, on the day of the contravention. This is also evidenced by the fact that McDonald’s permitted MET Parking’s parking enforcement signs to be prominently displayed on the site at that time and to this date.

A copy of Letter Of Authority is provided, with a contract date between McDonalds & MET dated 31 August 2010.

2. 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


Whilst we cannot account for the driver’s apparent limited vision it certainly could not have been from fog as our cameras are located 10 to 20 metres from the vehicles as they enter and exit the car park and as you can see from the images below and in Section E there does not appear to be any fog obscuring the vehicle or the roadway around the vehicle.
There are two entrance signs measuring 750mm x 1,000 mm either side of the entrance to the car park, these are numbered 1 & 17 on the site plan included in Section E and copies of these signs are included below and in Section E along with photographs of the signs in situ that clearly advise motorists of the terms and conditions of parking and in the case of this site the primary condition of a 60 minute maximum stay.

Copy of sign provided

The size of the 60 minute lettering on this sign is 90mm
This term is then repeated in twice on the terms and conditions signs that motorists are directed to read, along with the motorist being advised twice on the terms and
conditions sign that if they fail to comply with this condition they will be issued with a £100 charge notice.


3. There is no photographic evidence on the charge notice that clearly identifies the vehicle entering or leaving the site.
We note Mr XXXX points out that operators are not required to include photographic evidence on the charge notice, but just disputes that there is any identifying his vehicle entering and leaving the site.
We attach below an extract from the notice which demonstrates that this evidence is on the charge notice. The full notice can be seen in Section B

Same copy of original photos provided

4. He apparently also does not consider that the signs explain that cctv cameras are being used to monitor vehicle activity and that this may lead to the issue of a charge notice.
We include below an extract from the signs. A full copy of the sign is included in Section.

Copy of extract from sign with wording provided. Note : wording is very small & would be impossible to read on entering.

5. He refuses to state who the driver is and there can be no presumption of registered keeper liability.
We note Mr XXXX does not wish to identify the driver and therefore we are seeking to rely on the provisions of Schedule 4 to the protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the registered keeper. This is also detailed in Section C.

We believe we can pursue the registered keeper for payment of the charge notice as:
1. The land on which the vehicle was parked was private land and falls within the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act.
2. The driver of the vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land and the charges have not been paid in full.
3. We have the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid charges but are unable to take steps to enforce that requirement because we do not know the name and current address for service of the driver.
4. We have given a notice to the keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act, this notice:
a. Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on whit it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
b. Informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay the charges and they have not been paid in full;
c. Describes the charges due, the circumstances and other facts that made them payable;
d. Specifies the amount unpaid;
e. States that we do not know the name and address of the driver and invites the keeper to either pay the charges or advise us of the name and address of the driver;
f. Warns the keeper that if we after the specified time the charges are not paid in full and we still do not know the name and address of the driver we may (subject to having met all the criteria) have the right to recover the outstanding sums from the registered keeper;
g. Informs the registered keeper of the prompt payment discount and arrangements for dispute resolution;
h. Identifies ourselves as the creditor and specifies how to make to payment to us or correspond with us;
i. Specifies the date of sending the notice;
j. Specifies the Creditor.
5. The notice contains appropriate evidence by way of date stamped photographs
6. The notice was given in accordance with sub-paragraph 9(4), 11 and 12 in all relevant respects.
7. The timetable of events is listed below:
a. The vehicle overstayed the permitted maximum stay on 18 December 2016.
b. The registered keeper details were received from the DVLA on 23 December and the Notice to Keeper was sent the same day.
The full details of the Notice to Keeper can be viewed in Section B below.
As the registered keeper has not provided us with the name and current address for service of the driver of the vehicle, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding parking charge notice.
Summary
The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on 17 signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These terms include that there is a maximum permitted stay in the car park of 60 minutes. Mr XXXXX's car was recorded as exceeding that maximum permitted stay by 53 minutes. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking. In light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

Coupon-mad

We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted contract between ourselves and our client as it contains information which is commercially sensitive and not relevant in this instance. It also extends to more than 20 pages and therefore the volume of redacted information will be significantly greater than the volume of un-redacted and relevant information.
We have however provided the letter of authority, the signature page and front sheet of the contract demonstrating it is the contract referred to in the letter of authority and the clause from the contract that demonstrates this is rolling contract and subsists until terminated.

I would use the Portal if it is open for comments, rather than email, as I think the POPLA Assessor is more likely to read comments there. You are very restricted on words in the comments box but you should not repeat your appeal anyway so a few comments are enough.

I would comment:


MET have refused to provide the full contract because it would be heavily redacted, so instead they've withheld the entire thing. Except a meaningless page which fails to set out ''the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement'' along with omitting evidence of compliance with 7.3 of the CoP.

As the signed date is seven years ago for an initial nine months, but no expiry date is shown nor proof of renewal since. This almost complete withholding of this very old landowner contract suggests MET are hiding vital information. As it is so old, pre-POFA, it is highly unlikely to allow MET to pursue registered keepers (only drivers) and is unlikely to state that MET can pursue charges in their own name 'in the courts if necessary' since this was a more recent CoP update, which must still be evidenced.

Further, on the signs MET only give the size of the '60 minutes' term and are silent on the font size of the parking charge and info about ANPR - all of this wording is minuscule & would be impossible to read before parking. And their ANPR 'zoomed in' car images do not disprove the fact that the weather was adverse and the signs certainly could not be read. They have not proved otherwise.

oldskoolforever

thanks very much. Do you think that i should include links to historical weather data which shows there was fog at this location on that date ? Or should i keep that to myself in case I need it at a later date ?

Coupon-mad

You can't show new evidence to POPLA and you can't add attachments on the Portal. Keep it simple.

oldskoolforever

Aha, fair enough. I should have provided that evidence originally really then. I'll submit as is. Thanks again, fingers crossed.

oldskoolforever

POPLA Decision : Successful

Thanks for all the help, the whole thing has made me wonder how much money they must be making from people who just pay up immediately. I'll post the detail in POPLA Decisions thread.

The_Deep

oldskoolforever wrote: »

POPLA Decision : Successful

Thanks for all the help, the whole thing has made me wonder how much money they must be making from people who just pay up immediately. I'll post the detail in POPLA Decisions thread.

Do not worry about them, they would only waste it on scratch cards and White Lightning.