MET Parking - Bicester Village

mdevilliers

I've received a fine for parking at the Bicester Village Railway from MET Parking.

The thing is I did pay for the correct ticket inside the station but had not realized that you are required to return to your car to display the ticket as it was a train ticket with my cars details printed on it rather than a "pay and display" type ticket.

The ticket issued had no additional information requiring you to return to you vehicle and display it and once inside the railway station there was no reminder to return to my vehicle to display my ticket.

This was the first time I had used the Bicester Village train station. You are not required to pay and display the parking ticket issued at my usual station Oxford Parkway. The ticket machine, ticket processing system and the ticket issued at Bicester Village and Oxford Parkway are the same.

The registration number of my car was entered whilst purchasing the ticket an a quick check between MET Parking and Chiltern Railways would have confirmed that I had indeed purchased a ticket.

I have already appealed the on the grounds I had bought a ticket but, no surprise, they dismissed my claim. I have a POPLA code and have used the wizard to generate an appeal on the following grounds -

1. The alleged contravention did not occur - I paid for the correct ticket as detailed above
2. There was insufficient sign-age - Lack of signage inside and outside the station that this is a pay and display station
3. The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss - hey I paid for a ticket and no loss was incurred

Does anyone think I have a chance? - I'm inclined to appeal and go all the way based on the fact I had purchased a valid ticket.

Is there anything else I need to consider?

Thanks for any advice,

Redx

the above grounds are useless apart from the signage

as its a railway station, bylaws apply

so use a recent railway popla appeal written by other members on here and adapt it to suit

3) will fail post BEAVIS

Coupon-mad

Does anyone think I have a chance? -

YES but not with that appeal. Did you miss the POPLA examples in 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST'?

Umkomaas

I have a POPLA code and have used the wizard to generate an appeal on the following grounds

Which wizard was that?

mdevilliers

Thanks for the replies.

Umkomaas :
I realize "wizard" was the wrong term - the template I used was from -
{ moneysavingexpert dot com }/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

(I don't appear to be able to post links yet)

Coupon-mad :
I had read the NEWBIES post but do admit to getting a bit lost - will reread.

Redx :
Thanks for the pointer about railway byelaws applying.

I will put together something tonight and post.

Thanks for your help!

Umkomaas

Umkomaas :
I realize "wizard" was the wrong term - the template I used was from -
{ moneysavingexpert dot com }/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

Oh no, it's just awful. We've been trying to get MSE Towers to remove this as it is just so wrong. It even hands the driver to the PPC on a plate.

There are mitigating circumstances to explain why I parked where I did and I am requesting that the charge be waived for this reason.

!!!!!! - in the era of the Protection of Freedoms Act! Just what are they doing? A new sacrificial lamb potentially to the slaughter every time this is used. The Act has been in place for more than 4.5 years.

Coupon-mad

I realize "wizard" was the wrong term - the template I used was from -
{ moneysavingexpert dot com }/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

It's a witch, no 'wizard'. Ruins people's chances at POPLA.

I've told MSE when asked, not to state 'the reason why I parked as I did was' but it's still there. DREADFUL of MSE.

mdevilliers

I've put together an appeal from and would like to run it past somebody before sending it off

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated


Dear Sir/Madam

I was issued with a parking ticket on 18/04/2017 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:

- The signage was not clear hence there was no valid contract formed between the operator and the driver

The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and was not seen before parking - so there was no valid contract formed between the operator and the driver. There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about the operator’s ‘terms and conditions’ was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.!

The ticket payment system inside the station where the ticket was purchased does not communicate any terms and conditions. Therefore, when you pay for your parking from inside the stations, there is nothing to clearly advise how any terms and conditions may be breached.

To be clear, there is nothing to communicate full contractual terms & conditions at the outset.

- 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.

There was no contract nor agreement on the ‘parking charge’ at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion to the offence of not displaying a valid ticket for the duration of their stay.

I attach a photo taken of the nearest sign to where the motor vehicle was parked.

[add photo]

As you can see the terms and conditions displayed on the sign are not readable from where the car was parked.

- No Breach of Contract

The ticket incorrectly states:

‘Issue reason:
No valid ticket/permit/voucher (Chiltern)’
The ticket also alleges incorrectly that ‘the parking charge has not been paid in full’.

[add photo of parking ticket]

[add photo of purchased ticket]

It is clear from the picture of my purchased ticket that the parking charge had indeed been paid in full.

- No Breach of Byelaw

There is no Railway byelaw known as: 'Issue reason : No valid ticket/permit/voucher (Chiltern)’ and it is clear that a ticket was purchased. If the operator attempts to hold me liable under byelaws, despite the fact that it is not relevant land (no POFA keeper liability possible) then breach of byelaws, too, is denied. Railway Byelaw 14 (3) says specifically:

''No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an operator or an authorised person at that place''.

As stated above the driver did pay the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with the instructions given.

I contend that no contravention of any contractual term stated on the sign at that place occurred and the PCN was not properly given.

- No person or body other than the Courts can impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), 14(2) or 14(3) of the Railway Byelaws 2005.

As persuasive evidence, see the Freedom of Information Request here:

[put link in here]

Any definition of “authorised person” (if Met Parking argue they are such) is not relevant in this context. There is nothing in the Railway Byelaws 2005 which states that such a person or private firm has any power to impose a ‘penalty’.

Only a Magistrates’ court can, upon laying of the case by the landowner, who are the Train Operating company (TOC).

Certainly a private firm cannot dress up a ‘charge’ and call it a ‘penalty’ just because they happen to be agents of a TOC at a Railway car park and they feel that calling their charge a penalty gives them a more imposing and intimidating status than issuing ‘parking charges’.

I put Met Parking to strict proof to show the basis of their ‘penalty’ and state the type of court within which they believe they would be able to enforce this ‘PN’ in their name, as required by the BPA CoP. If it is the Magistrates Court I put them to strict proof that they have the power and authority to do this and that they have done so, showing case files, claim numbers, and evidence from the TOC as well as a rebuttal of the publicly-available FOI information, if Met Parking submit it is incorrect. Met Parking will also have to prove with documentary evidence that the money from these alleged 'penalties' goes to the TOC (as a fine or penalty must) and not to Indigo (as a contractual charge dressed up to impersonate a penalty would).

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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. I do not believe that this operator has the required landowner authority and, as such; the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

Section 7.1 states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

As the operator does not have proprietary interest in the land I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner authorising them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for any alleged breaches. It will not be sufficient merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement as these do not show sufficient detail (such as restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with the landlord or any other parties). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice there must be a specifically worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

I would also like to formally request to see all evidence presented by Met Parking regarding this appeal and the opportunity to refute any evidence submitted by Indigo regarding this appeal.

To quote Henry Greenslade; a highly respected, longstanding lead adjudicator of parking ticket appeals across the board (Council statutory tribunals as well as private parking issues via POPLA), with a reputation for fairness and high integrity.

From the Final Report:

''At POPLA, Assessors consider the evidence produced by each party, all of which evidence the other party has the opportunity to see and comment upon.''

and from page 15 of the POPLA Annual Report 2015:

“…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety.''

That completes my case for appeal. I request that my appeal is upheld.

Kind Regards,
...

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

I would add the template POPLA point from the NEWBIES thread post #3 about 'the appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable' (in this case, since Railway Byelaws apply, only the owner can be liable and that party has never been identified).

mdevilliers

Will do,

Thanks for your help

mdevilliers

Just a quick message to say that MET Parking have chosen not to contest the appeal.

Thanks for all of the help - really appreciated!