MET Parking Charge - Did I mess up?

Fiddledy_D

Hi everybody - I wonder if you can help. I've been reading the First Time Guide post but I only discovered this after I'd lodged an appeal through MET's website... which has now been rejected. I thought it would be a simple case of showing that I had a valid ticket and all would be forgiven so I didn't stop to look here first. Now I'm not sure at what point of the process I should work from to protest my innocence further and whether or not I've inadvertently dropped myself in it with the first appeal?

In a nutshell, I paid for a full day's parking at a rail station and put the ticket on my dashboard. Somehow this dropped into the footwell without my noticing. I've provided a picture of the ticket proving that I bought it and offered the simple explanation that the ticket may have moved as the vehicle door was closed but the appeal has been rejected :mad: I don't know on what grounds they think it's fair to fine somebody when they've clearly paid to park in that space for the day. I'm determined not to pay it as it's obviously just a dirty way of extracting money from people based on nit-picking some Ts & Cs. The fact is, I paid to park there and I have the proof I paid.

I have been given a POPLA number and told to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of 12th April (I only got back from a fortnight in Greece yesterday!). Should I do this?

Umkomaas

I have been given a POPLA number and told to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of 12th April (I only got back from a fortnight in Greece yesterday!). Should I do this?

Yes, appeal to POPLA to get this overturned. But you need to forget putting in your appeal based on that which you sent to MET.

You've got more than a good couple of weeks to prepare your appeal. Starting points :-

1. NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 - tells you all about the POPLA process and includes template appeal points to copy and paste.
2. Forum searches on 'MET POPLA' to bring up recent threads with MET POPLA appeals - plagiarise relevant parts to create your own draft.

Let us see your draft for critique/fine tuning.

Fiddledy_D

Got it - OK Thank You.

Fiddledy_D

Right - so I have a question. My 'offence' was committed on 28th March and as yet, I still haven't had anything in the post to the "Keeper". Is this because I acknowledged being the Keeper in my original appeal? Or have MET not followed procedure?
I was re-reading the appeal rejection they sent me and I quote "you have acknowledged that you did not clearly display your ticket in the windscreen"... Actually, I explained in my original appeal that "I can only assume the ticket must have fallen when the vehicle door was closed" which, call me pedantic, but that's not an acknowledgment of fault rather an assumed explanation of what caused the problem?
ALSO - here's my appeal letter to date, please can you take a look and see if I've covered the right stuff and haven't missed anything?




POPLA Ref: xxx
MET Parking PCN no: xxx



A notice to keeper was issued on 28th March 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of Toyota xxx on 28th March 2017 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at Banbury Railway Station. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
3) Misleading and unclear signage
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers


1) Railway land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Railway Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016 that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

2) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“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.

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. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

3) The alleged contravention, according to MET, is in 'breach of the instructions of use of the car park and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. MET are required to show evidence to the contrary. The evidence provided by MET Parking Ltd. demonstrates the inadequacy of the signage (it is barely legible). No ‘Terms & Conditions” are displayed at the point of sale of the parking fare nor are they printed on the pay & display ticket itself.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."

4) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give MET Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, MET Parking Ltd’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require MET Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that MET Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles MET Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to MET Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that MET Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between MET Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that MET Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN

standuptobullies

Just a moral support point really as I am in the same boat - I have a ticket from MET at the POPLA stage also for a similar 'offence' - they recorded a letter incorrectly by speech recognition and are claiming they are entitled to charge a PCN. All very complicated because of the number of parties and agents involved etc. railway byelaws too - but want to fight it so I can warn others in future.
The landlord Chiltern has already lost more than £100 in revenue as I have never parked there since!

Umkomaas

The landlord Chiltern has already lost more than £100 in revenue as I have never parked there since!

Have you written to tell them? This isn't a smart-git question, but if they're never told the impact the PPC is having on their business/reputation, they're never going to know.

Coupon-mad

My 'offence' was committed on 28th March and as yet, I still haven't had anything in the post to the "Keeper". Is this because I acknowledged being the Keeper in my original appeal? Or have MET not followed procedure?

I am pretty sure there is a POPLA template for a PCN where the PPC never sent a NTK. I recall writing one for UKPC cases.

MET can't hold a keeper liable with no NTK, if the first notice was a windscreen one.