MET PCN Advice required

KeithP

Easy wasn't it?

But you said 'monumentally confusing'.

mick_miller

No, really, the terms and options are so varied it is, initially, overwhelming to someone encountering this parking charge 'scam' in the first instance.

However, thanks to the help of you and others like you I have been steered toward a pertinent case from which I could put a POPLA appeal letter together. For that you all have my thanks.

mick_miller

So, a quick update on this one. It appears that despite nominating 'keeper' on the original appeal the I used the words 'I left the vehicle to use the restroom facilities'... therefore MET Cowboys have countered with...

In his appeal to POPLA Mr bloggs raises several grounds of appeal: 1. The Notice to Keeper was not received within 14 days. As stated in Section C of our evidence pack, Mr bloggs has acknowledged that he is the driver and therefore we are pursuing him as the driver. Therefore we are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) in order to pursue him as the registered keeper, and so the requirements of PoFA 2012 do not apply, meaning there was no requirement for us to serve the notice within 14 days. Please find Mr bloggs!!!8217;s original appeal to us in Section D of our evidence pack, where he acknowledges being the driver. 2. We have deliberately chosen not to use PoFA 2012 and have not shown that the individual we are pursuing is the driver. As stated above, we are not relying on PoFA 2012 because Mr bloggs has acknowledged he was the driver in his original appeal. Therefore we are pursuing him as the driver. 3. Non-compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. As stated above, we are not relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 as Mr bloggs has acknowledged he was the driver and we are pursuing him as the driver. Therefore the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 are not applicable here. 4. No evidence of landowner authority. We have included evidence of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack, which demonstrates the area Southgate Park encompasses. We have also highlighted relevant paragraphs from the contract which demonstrate our authority to enforce parking restrictions at this location. 5. The signs in the car park are inadequate. We are confident that the signage in place is this car park is prominently displayed and clearly states the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. We have also included images of the signs taken at night in order to demonstrate that the signs remain visible in the hours of darkness. It remains the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 19 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include: 60 minutes free stay only and no free stay for McDonald!!!8217;s; parking is for Southgate Park Stansted customers only, do not leave the premises at any time when your vehicle is parked in the car park; no free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not on Southgate Park; if you wish to park here for McDonald!!!8217;s you must pay for parking from when you enter the car park. The signs clearly state in 3 separate conditions that there is no free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is situated adjacent to the Southgate Park site and has its own car park. As the photographic evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, Mr bloggs was recorded leaving the premises whilst his vehicle remained parked in the car park. Therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

They have photos of someone trying the handle of my car, that same random joe walking toward McDonalds and returning later.

Am I now over a barrel? I wish I had read this forum before responding to them in a panic! Any advice appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Read this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74079117#Comment_74079117

And make sure in your comments, you say similar things to that one. Include the concerns about data.

The fact that the keeper said in appeal that they used the rest room, simply places the keeper as an occupant of the car at best, not evidenced to have been the driver who parked on arrival, who may well have been in the other on site shop the entire time.

mick_miller

My comments (limited to 200 characters.

The PCN has been issued for allegedly 'leaving the site'. I take this to mean that the driver has left the site and as such, has potentially breached some clearly set out terms and conditions. This being so, I would have expected the operator to provide me (the registered keeper) with proof that the individual that !!!8216;left the site!!!8217; is the driver and registered keeper.

The photos provided neither show that the person at the door of the vehicle or on the footpath are in fact me, the registered keeper. Nor do they show that there are no other occupants of the vehicle or that those occupants made use of the Southgate Park facilities whilst parked at Southgate Park.

MET parking have asserted that they are pursuing me as the driver and are not relying on PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 as I !!!8220;acknowledged he was the driver in his original appeal!!!8221;. I made no such statement.

In my original appeal I stated two things only. Firstly, that I was the registered keeper. Secondly that I was !!!8220;not sure how this constitutes a contravention? The vehicle was parked in a marked bay for the restaurant services at Stansted. I left the vehicle to use the restroom facilities, returned shortly thereafter!!!8230;!!!8221;

I did not confirm that I was the driver as MET parking contest, simply that the vehicle was parked in a marked bay, and that I left the vehicle to use the restroom facilities. This statement, at best, places me as an occupant of the vehicle and not the driver as MET parking alledge. Therefore I am confident that the first two points of my appeal still stand.

It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut my claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly and they have failed to do so, therefore POPLA will not be able to find on the evidence that any contravention occurred, nor that the driver has been evidenced. The PCN has not been properly given.

These photographs also appear to overstep the mark in terms of data protection.

Coupon-mad

alledge.

''allege''

I am not sure about your wording, it sounds like you are trying to hide something and the comments should be shorter IMHO. It's this bit that sounds dodgy, because if the image was not you, then 'you' (an honest appellant) would say so!

The photos provided neither show that the person at the door of the vehicle or on the footpath are in fact me, the registered keeper.

I think it's the word ''me'' that I don't like.

It's also a huge shame that you wrote 'I was using the rest room' and you might lose this (just saying). If so, do NOT pay the thing, of course. No-one here does.

mick_miller

Good points, apologies for the spelling, although alledge is still correct, if now obsolete! Maybe I'm, reincarnated? I agree, a bit wordy for comments and perhaps I should have stated that the images are too blurry for me to discern who is beside the vehicle.

I also agree that it is likely I will lose. My initial appeal to MET should not have been composed after visiting this forum and seeking advice, unfortunately I only looked further after receiving the reply from MET following my first response.

The advice to NOT pay the thing, is that really sound advice? Surely this will be followed up with further demands to pay, small claims court etc.?

Quentin

You only have to pay if they take Court action and win!

mick_miller

Wouldn't that substantially raise the fee demanded though? I remember seeing somewhere though that MET hadn't actually taken any court action. So just ignore the demand letters should I lose my appeal?

Quentin

Look for yourself how many times they have taken people to court over the last 3 years at the bmpa website

What to do following a rejected appeal is all covered in the Newbies FAQ thread