MET Parking Services Stansted. POPLA stage help!

freedomreigns

Hi all,

I got a NTK from Southgate Car Park (Stansted Airport) and appealed as the keeper (not the driver) as recommended using the blurb in blue in the newbies section.

The reason for the ticket was 'Left the Premises'

I have now received the following response below (along with photographic evidence of a random person walking from the car towards McDonald's and back again).

What do I do next? I have done some forum searches and there's so many cases with slightly differing details so I thought I'd try and get some guidance for my specific case.

Much thanks in advance :A :beer:

THEIR RESPONSE:

Dear Mr Bloggs,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number ABXXXXXXX (Vehicle: XX08XYZ)
Site: (346) Southgate Park Issue date: 19/03/2018

POPLA Verification Code 1234567890

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to Parking Charge Notice ABXXXXXXX. After careful consideration we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the car park is for the use of Southgate Park customers while they are on the premises only, that McDonald's is not on Southgate Park and that there is no free parking for McDonald's. Your vehicle was recorded parked at this location while the occupants were pictured leaving the site walking in the direction of McDonald's therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.

Turning to the points you raised:
1. Yes
2. Attached
3. These may be viewed on appealmetparkingcom
4. With regard to S 10 notice, the driver gave permission for us to request the registered keeper details and we believe we have the right to pursue the charge notice revenue that is due to us.

This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:

1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the Parking
Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days of today!!!8217;s date. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will revert to £100.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at: popla.co.uk using verification code: 1234567890 Please note that POPLA will consider the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA!!!8217;s decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services ombudsman-services.org provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action.
Yours sincerely

Coupon-mad

I have now received the following response below (along with photographic evidence of a random person walking from the car towards McDonald's and back again).

Fixed that for you. Please edit your post!!

Look at this POPLA Decision, read it and learn from it:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73990157#post73990157

Use POPLA's words and turn them into the first point of your appeal:

1 - No evidence that a random person walking into McDonalds:

(a) left the site
or
(b) was the person who parked the car

The PCN has been issued for allegedly 'leaving the site'. In this case I would 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 driver did indeed leave the site. On reviewing the evidence, I can see that it has provided some blurry photos allegedly taken by the operative on site that shows a person walking to and from McDonalds.

That the photos appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of McDonalds patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the impending GDPR legislation.

Given some parking operators' modus operandi of handing anyone on site (landowners, local busybodies, shop workers, office workers) a camera and telling them they will pay a bounty for 'PCNs' issued, it cannot be assumed that the person who took the images is even a parking firm employee. Even if they are, this is still a random person with no DBS check clearance, taking photos not of cars and PCNs (as per their limited licence by the landowner) but of people and families going about their daily life. MET are then processing these people's personal images and sending those photos in the post, unsolicited, to a registered keeper of a car who may or may not know the persons in the photographs, who may be nothing to do with that vehicle at all.

In any case, the photos do not evidence that the person was seen parking the vehicle in question, only that an unidentified person was apparently photographed going towards McDonalds. If the DPA and GDPR allows them to even do this (again, I do not accept that it does and do not believe that any signs warn people that they - not just their vehicles - might be photographed) I would have expected the operator to provide me, the registered keeper, with evidence of who the driver actually was and where they went. This shows me no such thing. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries shown on any signs or on a prominent map that drivers can see while on site, in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.

Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site' this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park. Even if shown walking to what looks like an exit, a driver could be simply going to read the entrance sign, as any circumspect motorist knowing how predatory parking firms are, would do in order to protect themselves from the sort of 'outrageous scam' exposed by MPs in Parliament in February when they discussed the wholly out of control 'rogue' parking industry.

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.

ampersand

Let c-m advise you, op, and edit #1 asap.
#
I'd also be concerned by this outrageous claim:
' the driver gave permission for us to request the registered keeper details'

Really?
#
Further, this scumpany has no right to film 'the occupants' plural, doing anything, much less 'were pictured leaving the site walking in the direction of McDonald's'.

Look here:
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/motoring-parking/ppc-s-parking-charge-notices/1396609-bp-stansted-met-parking

Do a bit of Compare and Contrast.
#
...and another new Thread
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5817421

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

freedomreigns

Hi,

Thank you so much for your swift response! (Edits made!)

I'm on the POPLA site now and I'm assuming I am to choose the option 'Other' for grounds of appeal?

Also just to be clear, the photographic evidence provided was a photo of two random people in the middle of the road supposedly walking out of a car park and the other is of those same two people getting back into the vehicle in question

Coupon-mad

Yes 'other'.

And say what you see, in the POPLA appeal. You see two random people walking somewhere, then getting into this car afterwards, but that does NOT evidence who was in the driving seat when the car arrived and was PARKED. Cannot be assumed, could have been a third person who in fact was in the other shop on site all along, not off site like the supposed passengers.

freedomreigns

Hi,

So on the MET Parking actual appeals website they have 7 photos involving this case (with times):

Chronological order
1. Close up of the vehicle arriving at the car park. Passengers are not clearly visible - 14:37:31
2. Zoomed out version of the first photo - 14:37:39
3. Picture of two individuals standing next to the parked car (driver side car door open) - 14:40:10
4. Two individuals walking in the road away from the car park (car not pictured) - 14:40:34
5. Two individuals walking in the road towards the car park (car not pictured) - 15:20:28
6. Picture of two individuals standing next to the parked car again (driver side car door open) - 15:20:48
7. Car driving away from the car park - 15:21:38

With the above in mind, do I still have a case for appeal? Or should I just pay the £60 and not risk it going to £100

Much thanks in advance again!

nosferatu1001

God no. Noone pays MET. Ever.

Coupon-mad

Hahaha, even if you missed POPLA or lost, no-one would PAY this joke of a PCN!

Jeez no wonder PPC World make so much money!

We've told you the position, you have full support and advice here and still you think paying them is an option? I feel sorry for people who go anywhere else (pepipoo and the BMPA excluded) for advice, or don't even try, because some mugs do actually pay.

Look again. As I said:

And say what you see, in the POPLA appeal. You see two random people walking somewhere, then getting into this car afterwards, but that does NOT evidence who was in the driving seat when the car arrived and was PARKED. Cannot be assumed, could have been a third person who in fact was in the other shop on site all along, not off site like the supposed passengers.

State to POPLA that you are aware there were several occupants of the car, blah blah, use the words 'two random people walking somewhere unidentified'. Rant about the DPA and GDPR, like I said.

I gave you the first appeal point in post #2 above.

I also give you the other usual appeal points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, so you know exactly what points to use for POPLA, I would say 5 appeal points apply to your case including the one I already wrote for you (edit it to suit 2 random people, not one).

freedomreigns

Ok thanks again! :cool:

This is what I've adjusted to send to POPLA. Please let me know if this looks ok to you!


The PCN has been issued for allegedly 'leaving the site'. In this case I would 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 driver did indeed leave the site. On reviewing the evidence, I can see that it has provided some blurry photographs allegedly taken by the operative on site that shows two unidentified individuals walking to and from McDonalds.

The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of McDonalds patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the impending GDPR legislation.

Given some parking operators' modus operandi of handing anyone on site (landowners, local busybodies, shop workers, office workers) a camera and telling them they will pay a bounty for 'PCNs' issued, it cannot be assumed that the person who took the images is even a parking firm employee. Even if they are, this is still a random person with no DBS check clearance, taking photos not of cars and PCNs (as per their limited licence by the landowner) but of people and families going about their daily life. MET are then processing these people's personal images and sending those photos in the post, unsolicited, to a registered keeper of a car who may or may not know the persons in the photographs, who may be nothing to do with that vehicle at all.

In any case, the photos do not evidence that the person was seen parking the vehicle in question, only that two unidentified persons were apparently photographed going towards McDonalds, then getting into the car afterwards, but that does NOT evidence who was in the driving seat when the car arrived and was parked. This cannot be assumed and could have been a third person who in fact was in the other shop on site all along, not off site like the supposed passengers.

If the DPA and GDPR allows them to even do this (again, I do not accept that it does and do not believe that any signs warn people that they - not just their vehicles - might be photographed) I would have expected the operator to provide me, the registered keeper, with evidence of who the driver actually was and where they went. This shows me no such thing. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that drivers can see while on site, in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.

Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site' this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park. Even if shown walking to what looks like an exit, a driver could be simply going to read the entrance sign, as any circumspect motorist knowing how predatory parking firms are, would do in order to protect themselves from the sort of 'outrageous scam' exposed by MPs in Parliament in February when they discussed the wholly out of control 'rogue' parking industry.

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.

Coupon-mad

OK that's the first point, now add the other usual ones to make it long, hard for MET to contest.