Received PCN Reminder after appeal but no POPLA

Umkomaas

hanmin wrote: »

They must have hide it well, I can't see MET's email on their webpage metreview.com, nor the PCN.
Can't find it on the newbie page too.

I'll send them a snail mail?

At a quick glance, I can't find any electronic means of communication. If you're using snail mail, get a free certificate of posting from your PO counters with first class posting - no need for 'Signed For/Recorded'. Just don't simply launch it into any old post box, you need to have proof of dispatch.

hanmin

Will do both the info@metparking.com, and send a snail mail

pappa_golf wrote: »

what address did your letter come from

I'm not sure if it's the correct envelope (I retrieved it from trashcan), it said "UK Mail Ltd, PO Box 195, Express House, Leeds LS27 1BF". The footer of the letter said "Registered office: 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS", and the letter said send all appeals and complaints to "Appeals Department, MET Parking Servies, PO Box 64168, London, WC1A 9BE". How does this matter?

pappa_golf

just checking if the letter was from MET or a debt collecing scum

hanmin

Thank you for your correspondence, in which you raised concerns about the issuing of the above Parking Charge Notice.

We note that this is not a representation of the charge, but is a query regarding your original appeal.

We would like to note that we responded to your appeal on the 21st April 2017, notifying you that you appeal had been declined. Please see a copy of this letter attached.

Due to you not receiving the response to your appeal, we have reduced the charge back to the discounted amount for a further 14 days from the date of this letter to allow you to settle the charge at the discounted rate.

We have also issued you with a new POPLA code which can be used for 28 days from the date of this letter. Please see option 2 on the rejection letter which explains how to make an appeal to POPLA.

Got the above from them. For future reference, I emailed info@metparking.com, but I got the response from customer.services@metparking.com

I checked the supposedly attached Word documents, it was created on 21st April, but was modified today, 30 minutes before I received the email. Obviously they just grab someone's letter and modify to put in my information. Do you think I should make a fuss on this?

I've also sent the snail mail before I got the email, lets see if I get the same response

Coupon-mad

I checked the supposedly attached Word documents, it was created on 21st April, but was modified today, 30 minutes before I received the email. Obviously they just grab someone's letter and modify to put in my information. Do you think I should make a fuss on this?

Yes. Email a copy of it to the DVLA and point out exactly what they have done, and ask 'is this what one could call a ghost rejection letter/POPLA code?' and do you consider this sort of scam to be on a par with 'ghost ticketing'?:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Point out the modified document that never existed until that day, saying that their haste to issue a new POPLA code does them no favours, as it is unusual and appears to support the view the letter was never sent.

hanmin

POPLA Ref xxxx
MET Parking PCN no xxxx

A notice to keeper was issued on xxx and received by me xxx, the registered keeper of xxx on xxx for an alleged contravention of staying longer than authorized. 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) Misleading and unclear signage
(2) Badly design car park where exit is blocked by incoming Drive Through queue
(3) 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)
(4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
(5) Amount demanded is a penalty
(6) Photo evidence appears doctored

(1) Misleading and unclear signage
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. This is especially made worse under insufficient lighting at the car park that either not installed properly, or not switched on, at the time of the incident which is at dusk period. On top of all these, 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 and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

- A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
- A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

(2) Badly design car park where exit is blocked by incoming Drive Through queue
The car park was badly design in such that once you are in the Parent with Children parking bay near the entrance of the car park, your exit route is blocked by the Drive Through queue build up. Consider the peak hour at dinner time at the time of incident and the slow rate of service on that particular restaurant at that time, this adds up a significant amount of delay trying to exit the parking bay at the time. In addition, once you are out of the parking bay, your exit is still block by the same Drive Through queue, because the entrance and exit share the same gateway, and the major traffic, coming from the main route of (A4 Bath Road) cross over with the exit.

This is illustrated in the map below where RED represent the built up of queue to the Drive Through, while BLUE mark the spot of location where the car was parked at the time of incident. GREEN shows at the exit route is also blocked by the built-up of Drive Through traffic.

<Map attached here>

I would like to put this operator to proof that of either CCTV footage at the time of the incident showing the condition of the Drive Through queue build up. If CCTV footage is impossible, I would like the operator to show academically reviewed mathematics calculation/simulation that illustrate the queue build up with respect of the demand and the rate of service of the restaurant, and how it affects the exit route of the parking bay.

(3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

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.''

(4) 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).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 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

(5) Amount demanded is a penalty
Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle under the lighting condition at the particular time of the day, in that day of the year.

I would like to put the operator to proof, with statistical significance, that normal people, under the same lighting condition on a moving vehicle can safely read, understand, and consider it whilst making sure that the driver is also not dangerously driving.

(6) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle
This is most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. The details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the lower right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I challenge the operator to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

hanmin

I've got the POPLA response. MET dropped the case!.
3 weeks after I've submitted the POPLA appeal above.
Fairly standard POPLA appeal, but I've added a McDonald specific Drive through issue that potentially blocking entry and exit.

hanmin

As for the 'ghost POPLA' letter, I've got a response from BPA. As expected, they won't do much about it. Following is their reply.

We note you advise you did not receive a copy of the appeal outcome. Unfortunately we are unable to ascertain whether mail (or an email) has or has not been sent or received by either party. As it is not currently a requirement of the Code that the operator sends mail using recorded delivery (or requests a delivery receipt for an email), we cannot advise there to be a breach of the Code.

We note you state in your previous email that you believe the documents have been ‘modified’ prior to being issued, while also stating that you believe that this document had not previously been printed. We are unable to intervene in the arbitration of a dispute between an operator and an individual as we are unable to ascertain whether mail (or an email) has or has not been sent or received by either party.

Umkomaas

Usual rubbish BPA fob-off.

At least Steve Clarke, who previously handled such complaints at the BPA, did so professionally and would never insult anyone's intelligence by sending such a cringeworthy response.