MET Parking Services PCN - Urgent Advice Please

Coupon-mad

http://i67.tinypic.com/2449wg4.jpg

The one showing that the sign is unlit is good evidence.

MrBear85

Thanks for the advice guys.

I am planning to submit my appeal to the PPC today which is done either via post or their webiste metreview.com. I just have a couple of questions about the details ...

There is an appeals section on their website that takes you to a web form. I have copied and pasted the template complaint from the NEWBIES thread. There is a line in the template letter that reads "I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply." what would you say is the best was of keeping this proof considering that submission is via a web form? Should I paste the entire letter into the "Your Comment" text box on the form and take a screenshot (NOTE: the whole letter will not be visible in a single screenshot as the text box is quite small) or should I save the letter as a pdf and upload it as one of the three attachments they allow (and simply refer them to that attachment in the text box)?

Secondly, should I challenge the quality of their ANPR photos as there are 4 attached to the case (on the PCN and also viewable online) two of which show just the number plate in isolation and two that are basically completely black (late at night) showing just the front and rear lights of the vehicle. The number plates cannot be seen in these second two photos - is this significant?

Finally, as I mentioned previously, there is the opportunity to upload 3 attachments to support my appeal. Which pieces of evidence (from the pictures I posted links to above) do you think would be most effective?

I was thinking:
1) The photo showing the unilluminated sign
2) Photo showing how difficult signs are to read from the driver's prespective upon entry into car park
3) Closer, natural lighting shot showing how the sign is still difficult to read up close given poor illumination

Thoughts? Should i specifically reference the attachments in the letter and, as above, state the issues that they demonstrate?

Thank you.

MrBear85

Hi All,

So I submitted my appeal (see below) to the PPC on Monay night. As you can see, I pretty much just went with the standard template from the NEWBIES thread and didn't really embelish by mentioning any of the circumstances or getting into great detail about key defence points (visibility of signs, reliability of ANPR cameras, timestamps etc.). The only thing I added was a line about how some of the signs are not illuminated. I uploaded the letter as a PDF on their appeals page and then just referred them to that attachment in the comments section. I hope this sounds ok to you?

I'm now awaiting their response and, presumably, POPLA code. Should I start preparing my submission to POPLA now or do I need to wait for any info from them first?

Something else I noticed when re-reading the wording on the signs (and may be relevant to any GPEoL arguement?) is that it does not say anything about "no return within ..." meaning that someone parking could, under their own terms and conditions, park for 4 hours, drive out of the car park and immediately back in and re-park for another 4 hours and repeat ad infinitum. Therefore, how can they argue to have incurred any genuine loss by someone overstaying? Their whole business model is based upon people infringing the Ts&Cs, if no one ever did they would make a loss.

Appeal I submitted:

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. A number of the signs are not illuminated reducing visibility and legibility at night even further.
Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the BPA Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, for example) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal in your contract, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not give you consent to process data from the DVLA relating to this vehicle, whether you have already obtained it or not.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Coupon-mad

Therefore, how can they argue to have incurred any genuine loss by someone overstaying?

They do not have to. There are no legs in a GPEOL argument.

MrBear85

Coupon-mad wrote: »

They do not have to. There are no legs in a GPEOL argument.

Oh ok, there seem to be quite a few examples of people on this forum using this arguement in their POPLA appeals when I have searched for examples? Here's an extract from one for the same PPC/Car Park from 2015, has something changed recently to invalidate this arguement?

(Not questioning your knowledge, just curious)

MET Parking Services state in their letter of rejection that the parking charge represents a claim for liquidated damages. Accordingly, the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

I require MET to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. MET cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner does not impose a parking fee for the area in question, there is no loss to MET nor the landowner. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

Thanks

Guys_Dad

MrBear85 wrote: »

Oh ok, there seem to be quite a few examples of people on this forum using this arguement in their POPLA appeals when I have searched for examples? Here's an extract from one for the same PPC/Car Park from 2015, has something changed recently to invalidate this arguement?

(Not questioning your knowledge, just curious)



Thanks

Best not question c-m's knowledge ! Yes, something has changed. A case, known to those on here as Beavis, went to court, appeal and supreme court and that almost wiped out GPEOL as it was lost.

You can still win with GPEOL in some cases, but for the layman, it's dead.

MrBear85

Thanks Guys Dad

Best not question c-m's knowledge !

I wouldn't dream of it! Really appreciate everyone's help :beer:

MrBear85

Hi All, hope you are well.

Today I received the rejection of my initial appeal to MET Parking Services including POPLA code. Below are some links to redacted copies of both the original PCN and the appeal rejection letter. It all seems pretty standard, templated stuff going on my limited experience. The only real points of note that I would appreciate some clarity on are;

1) Their third reason for rejection states "As stated on the reverse of the charge notice MET Parking Services are the creditor". What point are they trying to make/refute here?

2)Their fourth point states "Ownership of the premises, this is a matter of public record and we recommend you research these records". Should I do as they say (if so where can I get this info?) or is there a requirement on them to prove their stake in the land?

3) The rejection letter states that I can pay at the "prevailing price of £50 within 14 days". The discounted rate was £60 on the original PCN, should I make reference to this inconsistency in my POPLA appeal?

I'll get to drafting my POPLA appeal now and will share for review shortly.

PCN Page 1:


PCN Page 2:


Appeal Rejection Page 1:


Appeal Rejection Page 2:


Thanks for all your help.

Guys_Dad

MrBear85 wrote: »

Hi All, hope you are well.

Today I received the rejection of my initial appeal to MET Parking Services including POPLA code. Below are some links to redacted copies of both the original PCN and the appeal rejection letter. It all seems pretty standard, templated stuff going on my limited experience. The only real points of note that I would appreciate some clarity on are;

1) Their third reason for rejection states "As stated on the reverse of the charge notice MET Parking Services are the creditor". What point are they trying to make/refute here?

2)Their fourth point states "Ownership of the premises, this is a matter of public record and we recommend you research these records". Should I do as they say (if so where can I get this info?) or is there a requirement on them to prove their stake in the land? Yes. They will need to produce evidence at POPLA so make sure this is a major appeal point.

3) The rejection letter states that I can pay at the "prevailing price of £50 within 14 days". The discounted rate was £60 on the original PCN, should I make reference to this inconsistency in my POPLA appeal? Not much point as if you appeal, bang goes the 14 days.

I'll get to drafting my POPLA appeal now and will share for review shortly.

Thanks for all your help.

Just check out successful POPLA appeals and, if possible, search the POPLA APPEALS sticky to check out any history on this PPC / site.

Good luck.

Coupon-mad

The rejection is the same as any other. You just need to find the template POPLA appeal points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and put them together. If it was dark when the car was parked, add any pics you can get, of the signs as they look in the dark (even if they are pitch black!).