MEP parking BP stansted

billybonds4

Thanks Coupon Mad

I don't understand. So I'm taking responsibility as the leasee/ hirer but not the driver?
So I know put my name to it isn't it now obvious I'm the driver?
I'm totally lost now what I'm supposed to be putting in the letter and from what perspective?

You know what. I've learned a lot for the future but push it through is sounding way more risky. I'll end up ripped off for £100 rather than £60.

Out of interest. If appeal was done in directors name would it have to bare an actual signature. Or just name on headed paper saying it was he she appealing?

billybonds4

Nobody has commented about whether the signs should state it is legally operating on behalf of the land owner. The ones at BP do not.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gOiIBB9KphmOYV0ITforZWyFTBk9zdNo/view?usp=drivesdk

billybonds4

FYI
This was my original appeal. I wonder whether it has conflict now, should i of continued to appeal to popla?

{ xx March 2019

Please respond to this email address in this instance.

Re PCN number: xxxxxxxx VRN: xxxxxxx

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. However I can confirm and prove a purchase was made and consumed at your clients store in good faith during a break. I sympathize and appreciate that the store has issues with taxi drivers for airport pickups. This vehicle is a 2 seat van and clearly not suitable for taxi carriage use. And in any case it is common knowledge there is a set down/pick up site with hours grace and numerous parking rest areas in close proximity. I’m sure if drivers were clearly aware of the hostile treatment of paying patrons, the service would be avoided. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the exact customer parking bay location on the material date.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.
Please respond to this email address in this instance!

Yours faithfully, }

Coupon-mad

Not sure why you don't understand my post #51?

I have talked you through how to do this POPLA appeal in YOUR name, to avoid the company director requirement.

Your first appeal was standard and fine.

push it through is sounding way more risky. I'll end up ripped off for £100 rather than £60.

RISKY? A PCN from MET?! They never sue and you will pay nothing, ever, at all, as long as you keep your company out of it, hence why you need an email from the company just to confirm that YOU can make the appeal as lessee/hirer.

Ideally the company should have written to MET to transfer liability to you. Because they didn't, the only risk is MET writing to them again, then the stupid company paying, then charging you...

Appealing as lessee is normal - search the forum for Lessee/hirer POPLA and see!

billybonds4

Ok. Thank you.
So still not admitting to being the driver. Even though I'm now naming myself and the company has handed me the right to appeal. Wouldn't that be obvious to popla it's me that's the driver?

Coupon-mad

A lessee can usually allow their family to use the car, so how do POPLA know? They don't. POPLA cannot assume who was driving.

Have you read all the lessee/hirer appeals won? Do you want to win?!

Appealing as lessee is normal - search the forum for Lessee/hirer POPLA and see!

billybonds4

Ok. So if got this sent over from company on their info@companyname Addy. I guess I can screen shot and place in appeal.


(27/03/2019

I forward all detail and authorise Mr*****(leasee/hirer) of vehicle *******

To make appeal to POPLA relating to PCN ********

Regards Mr)

Coupon-mad

Great, now read and copy/adapt a typical lessee/hirer POPLA appeal from here.

Show us what you come up with after reading two or three, you will see why it matters not to say who was driving, and why you also need to say that it is clear that this was an unidentified driver of a leased car, out of business hours and stopping for something to eat.

Thus, you will be saying, neither the POFA requirements have been met, nor are the company liable as the driver was not on company business there at that time of night.

You will need to write your own intro explaining that you have authority to appeal this to POPLA in your own name, as lessee/hirer.

billybonds4

Thank you. I'll get on that :T

billybonds4

This is my first draft. Be grateful for any advice. TIA.

As the lessee/hirer of the vehicle and authorised party for appeal, please see attached consent from registered keeper. I must robustly contest the associated PCN issued by MET on at least four grounds.

1. Failure to comply with the strict requirements set by POFA.
2. The vehicle was clearly being used out of obvious and usual business hours.
3. Poor signage.
4. No evidence of landowner authority.

1. Failure to comply with strict requirements set by POFA
In the case of a PCN issued in respect of a lease/hire vehicle, in order to have the right to use the provisions of schedule 4 of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicles lessee/hirer, an operator must

POFA Schedule 4, para 9(2)f. Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given-
(i) the amount of the unpaid charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver
The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of the amount as remains unpaid.
IN THE CASE OF THIS PCN ISSUED BY MET, MET HAVE FAILED TO ADHERE TO THE STRICT REQUIREMENTS OF POPLA.

2. By nature of the day and time of which the PCN was issued, it is clear that the driver present was not acting or operating in business hours. A rest break taken on a journey in recreational time, where by a purchase was made in good faith, cannot be the responsibility of any usual associated business of the vehicle conducted in usual Monday – Friday, 8am – 6pm operation hours.

3. The signage on site is poorly situated, illuminated and presented. On directly entering the site by vehicle, the main sign does not display any fine applicable nor does it as required display agreement of operation with landowner, more specifically and crucial to driver information the sign is NOT ILLUMINATED and impossible to notice when entering the site by night. There are a small number of allocated parking bays directly in front of store, accessible through centre of forecourt between pumps, or around the perimeter. Crucially there are no signs in front of the parking bays, so if a driver enters the site at night, they will be unable to see first sign due to lack of illumination. And if they drive direct through forecourt to a parking space. They will pass no warning sign of potential parking violation. Please see photographic evidence attached.

4. No evidence of landowner authority.

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.

I look forward to your return correspondence.
Kinds regards.