Met parking Stansted. POPLA stage help

gran_timo

Hi all, could i get some help please to guide me on my way. I have submitted my initial appeal as the registered keeper to MET PARKING using the template on this site. As expected they have rejected my appeal with a POPLA CODE, ignoring my added part to the template about them not complying with the terms of POFA 2012. The PCN is for allegedly leaving site not for overstaying and i have received 8 pictures of 3 random people walking from and to my car and my car leaving the site. They also ignored the template appeal request to receive all correspondence in future by post and have sent the appeal rejection via email.
many thanks Gran_Timo

Ezisola

gran_timo wrote: »

Hi all, could i get some help please to guide me on my way. I have submitted my initial appeal as the registered keeper to MET PARKING using the template on this site. As expected they have rejected my appeal with a POPLA CODE, ignoring my added part to the template about them not complying with the terms of POFA 2012. The PCN is for allegedly leaving site not for overstaying and i have received 8 pictures of 3 random people walking from and to my car and my car leaving the site. They also ignored the template appeal request to receive all correspondence in future by post and have sent the appeal rejection via email.
many thanks Gran_Timo

The parking companies always ignore the appeals. Have you read the NEWBIES thread? You need to put together a POPLA appeal based on the examples linked from there and then post it here for the experts to take a look. Most of the POPLA appeals here are split nicely into chunks which you can add/remove depending on if the circumstances applied to you.

gran_timo

Good morning,
Re PCN number:
I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

could someone please explain to me exactly how the above text as copied from initial appeal template on this site works please.
I have written to my MP to complain about the way my PCN was issued for allegedly leaving site and i have given the MP a bit of background as to who was in the car with me relationship but not name, but have never stated who was driving. If the "!!!! turpin brigade" receive my MPs letter can they make an assumption about who could have been driving from one of the people they know to be present in the car or is it exactly as the text above and no presumptions can be drawn. I am about to do my POPLA appeal but have noted on this site that they (the !!!! turpin brigade) tend to take it all the way if they think they know who the driver is

onlyfoolsandparking

Hello, it works exactly as its stated its up to the PPC to prove who was driving and they will try every trick in the book to A, get you to tell them (if indeed you even know) and B, spout off all sorts of lying "Legal" terms that makes you believe you have to tell them.


There is currently NO LAW that compels you to tell them who the driver is/was. They might cite previous court cases like Elliot v Loake and Parkingeye v Beavis which have of course been rebutted on a number of more recent court cases.


Any PPC can take you to court if they wish, some do, some don't but if they do they CAN (and usually are!) be beaten with the help and advice from the good people on here.


I too wrote to my MP with little success, well apart from a generic toothless reply stating he is aware of the problem but couldn't be arsed getting involved.


You need to start reading in depth the NEWBIES sticky which will explain in thorough detail the game you are now in.

nosferatu1001

I have no idea how you think it "works", or what you mean by that

What it does is tell them the appeal is fro teh Keeper of the vehcile, who is a seperate legal identity from the driver of the vehicle, and seperate again to the owner
Any aleged contract is only with the driver
If they havent followed the strictures of POFA2012 to hold the keeper liable, if they dont know the driver, theyre stuffed.

LawlessGoose

A landowner may contract with a parking company to administer a parking scheme on his land. As with any exchange of goods and services a contract is established between the parking company and the driver who wishes to park. e.g. the parking company erects signage that communicates the terms of the contract and the driver may agree to them and park or disagree and leave. [or, more commonly the signage is legally deficient and would fail at creating a contract anyway].

The issue comes when the driver doesn't pay up for the charges he is liable for. For this reason the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was enacted [protecting what freedoms exactly?] so that parking companies can establish liability for the charges with the keeper of the vehicle. There are strict requirements that must be met in order for liability to be established with the keeper of the vehicle. Any failing in the requirements means that only the driver can be liable.

There can be no assumption in law, without evidence, that the keeper was also the driver. It's entirely possible, for example, to be the registered keeper of a vehicle without holding a driving licence. Or you may have gone on holiday and allowed your friend to use it while you were away. Etc.

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES appeal *works* first time against the likes of Smart Parking, Highview, CP Plus and CEL, because they recognise the template and know the appellant is on MSE.

The common denominators with those firms are:

- they all issue 'postal PCN' tickets (mainly), using ANPR, and

- they all choose not to use the words from the POFA 2012 to hold keepers liable, and

- they all know they WILL lose at POPLA, just by a clued-up keeper appealing.

Hence, they fold. So do a few others.

However, if you have a PCN from another company, the template appeal is not expected to always *work* first time, but it sends the same message and leaves a keeper's defence options open later, if the PPC is litigious.

Coupon-mad

Why not just read recent MET POPLA left site appeals. All the same, pretty much.

Search the forum for those keywords in bold (advanced search, change to 'show results as posts'). And read the third post of the NEWBIES thread - all about POPLA - that's why it's there!

Then show us your draft like everyone else does.

gran_timo

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 3 random persons 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. Although mine is strikingly similar to Mick Miller and FreedomReigns.

Many thanks in advance

THEIR RESPONSE:-

Dear whoever,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number Axxxxxxxx (Vehicle: xxxxxxx)
Site: (346) Southgate Park Issue date: xx/07/2018
POPLA Verification Code 0123456789
Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge notice. 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 a pay by phone car park, that there is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers, while they are on the premises only, that McDonald's is not on Southgate Park and that if you wish to park here and visit locations that are not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald's you must pay for parking. Our records show that your vehicle was left in this car park while the occupant left Southgate Park walking in the direction of McDonald's therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
If they had wanted to park in this car park and leave the premises they could have done so by paying the appropriate parking tariff.
Turning to the points you raised in your email:
We are confident that our signs comply with all relevant legislation and regulation. We are also confident that there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions. Please see attached copies of photographs of your vehicle and of the terms and conditions as displayed on the signs in this location. Please note these may also be seen at [FONT=&quot]paymetparking.com[/FONT] . Please also note we reserve the right to produce whatever evidence we deem necessary and appropriate should we need to pursue this matter through the courts or respond to a POPLA appeal

KeithP

Is this now the third thread you have started about this incident?

Please PM a Board Guide to get these threads merged.

Please do not start a new thread every time you think of a question. Thanks.

gran_timo

It is extremely important that you now, immediately, delete your PoPLA Code from your post.
Unless you are happy for some rogue to submit a PoPLA appeal on your behalf. :eek:

no worries on that front KeithP i just made the number up by working along the keyboard, but thanks for your diligence , that would have been a big mistake. i will start no new threads. many thanks.