MET Parking Services PCN - Urgent Advice Please

MrBear85

twhitehousescat wrote: »

so lets get this streight , there is a car park with 4hrs free parking for gym members , there is no offer of parking or machines to pay for parking on the site?

you parked on this land and went walkabouts for 4.5 hrs

is that close or have I missed something

The driver is alleged to have parked for approx 4.5 hours and yes, there are no machines to pay for parking. The signs state that the car park is for use by gym members but in small print that cannot be easily seen from the driver's view. (I've been told it's not relevant but the gym closed before the 4 hour period came to an end).

I didn't think it would be worth writing a complaint to the landowner but I thought I better check in case it was an important step in the process.

Thanks.

twhitehousescat

the gym , bought the land for its own members to use , not as a public car park , had they have wished that they would have installed parking meters .
The signs state that the car park is for use by gym members

you were not a gym member , you had no authority to park there,


(I've been told it's not relevant but the gym closed before the 4 hour period came to an end).

ahh , got it , you think the gym only rented the land whilst they were open , thats ok then


this site (or forum) is to assist people that have been "badly done" by parking Cos , to assist you , we would all have to believe that its lawfull to just park on anybodys land and not give a hoot ,


sorry , cant help any more ,

MrBear85

When I wrote ..

The driver is not a member of the gym and did not visit the gym on the night in question.

I thought that made it clear that I understand that the driver may have infringed the gym's Ts&Cs. My problem is that the signage in the car park does not make those Ts&Cs clear enough upon entry. The largest text on the sign is the "4 hours maximum stay" and even that isn't in particularly large typeface. The mention of being for members only is in a much smaller typeface and easily missed.

I thought this was a forum for people who are against these PPC and their practices? I accept that the driver may have infringed some of the PPC's Ts&Cs but I argue that they are not made clear enough and that the charge is wildly disproportionate to any loss incurred.

Coupon-mad

MrBear85 wrote: »

I thought this was a forum for people who are against these PPC and their practices? I accept that the driver may have infringed some of the PPC's Ts&Cs but I argue that they are not made clear enough and that the charge is wildly disproportionate to any loss incurred.

I agree and would never really 'judge' a driver, except idiots who park in disabled bays...even with those, we help them avoid paying a parking scammer but we lecture them. You do not need a lecture.

MrBear85

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree and would never really 'judge' a driver, except idiots who park in disabled bays...even with those, we help them avoid paying a parking scammer but we lecture them. You do not need a lecture.

Thank you Coupon-mad :-) You're right, I came here for help on the appeal process, not a telling off. If the charge had been reasonable (say £15 - £20) I'd have just paid it.

Do you also agree that I should not write to the landowner? I wouldn't do it instinctively (given the infringement of the Ts&Cs) but I wouldn't want to undermine my appeal by missing out a step? Should I just proceed to complaining directly to the PPC?

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Yes miss out a complaint to the landowner if not a 'patron'. Just challenge the PCN with the PPC, as per the NEWBIES thread.

MrBear85

Thanks Coupon-mad.

Would you mind making my image links active and giving your experienced view on the signage used by this particular PPC? Looks to my eye like key information is much too small?

Signage as viewed from the road leading towards car park entrance:
[IMG]hxxp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2chqrrt&s=9[/IMG]

Sign at entrance viewed from driver's seat:
[IMG]hxxp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=kcf8eo&s=9[/IMG]

Nearest sign to space allegedly parked in (note the broken lighting):
[IMG]hxxp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2449wg4&s=9[/IMG]

Picture of the same sign taken on foot from approx 1m away:
[IMG]hxxp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=20tnx9u&s=9[/IMG]

Taken with flash so it can actually be read:
[IMG]hxxp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=v33wcn&s=9[/IMG]

Thank you :-)

Guys_Dad

Putting aside the question of a letter to Virgin and concentrating on your appeal, as you are able to revisit the parking area, then you should compare the writing on the signs with the BPA CoP here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

You will see their section on Signs Appendix B page 28. This is the BPA specification and you need to check if the signs meet that spec. This may be open to personal interpretation, should this get to court, so you need to pick out where their signs fail to meet the BPA spec.

You also need to look and decide if you are going down the contract failure defence or the forbidding route - both explained in other posts in this forum.

The basic difference is that if you have a right to be there but failed some t&c, then it is the former. If you have no right, then it is the latter. If you were a gym member, I believe it would be the former but as you are not and were not on site as a member, I think it is the latter and that will be need to be made out for your appeal. You can't be held for breaking a contract that you were not permitted to enter and were, in fact, trespassing. Believe it or not, that can be in your favour.

From your photos, without anyone standing next to the signs to show scale, I think they are definitely not the worst we have seen and appear reasonably visible at night, so do try to pick definite holes in them with the CoP.

Fruitcake

Signage as viewed from the road leading towards car park entrance:


Sign at entrance viewed from driver's seat:


Nearest sign to space allegedly parked in (note the broken lighting):


Picture of the same sign taken on foot from approx 1m away:


Taken with flash so it can actually be read:


Nope, still not working. That still doesn't look like the URLs to me as when I post a link it has URL in it, not IMG.

Guys_Dad

Fruitcake wrote: »

Signage as viewed from the road leading towards car park entrance:


Sign at entrance viewed from driver's seat:


Nearest sign to space allegedly parked in (note the broken lighting):


Picture of the same sign taken on foot from approx 1m away:


Taken with flash so it can actually be read:


Nope, still not working. That still doesn't look like the URLs to me as when I post a link it has URL in it, not IMG.

put them in like this
tinypic.com/view.php?pic=20tnx9u&s=9