Stanstead BP Met Fine, yet again !!!

H8legalscammers

Hi all,

I have received Notice to registered keeper for my car being parked for 42 min at BP Stanstead.

I am new here so please excuse me if I'm going about this the wrong way.

I have read several threads similar to mine but it seems MET is for ever evolving the way it issues these fines .
My question is : does the fact that it states the driver of the vehicle is liable for a parking charge in the above amount which, at the date of this notice ..........it goes on to say : we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and as the registered keeper of the vehicle you are now invited to either pay the parking charge or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle to notify us of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver .
Does this mean the appeal below is not suitable which I obtained from this site .

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. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
3. POFA 2012 Regulation
a. MET Parking has deliberately chosen not to use the POFA 2012 and has not
shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the
charge
b. The MET Parking Notice was not compliant with schedule 4 paragraph 4 POFA 2012 regulations.

4. Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62
5. Amount demanded is a penalty (Consumer Rights Act 2015)

1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

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:


In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

As inthe 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

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 and not illuminated at night . 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.

A number of the signs around the site are not illuminated either through poor
placement or faulty lighting. The reported date & time of the
alleged contravention is 19/07/2019 at 01:28 which was in the dark. Therefore in evening conditions, visibility of the already poorly legible signs would have been reduced when not properly illuminated.

Also, the sum of the parking charge in not displayed at all on the
sign positioned at the entrance to the site.

There's also the Contentious point: “Agree to T&C by entering land”

The sign is far behind the border of public road / private land.
MET Parking: “…. terms and conditions ….. and that those motorists entering the site agree to bound by.” So there was never given a fair chance to the motorist to stop safely to decide – theoretically in case the sign would have been readable – and to be aware about the terms and conditions when entering private land. The whole MET Parking statement is void /contentious – shown on image 2 – it is necessary first to enter private land to be able to read the terms and conditions – MET Parking deliberately gives the motorist no choice.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:


As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''


''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

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':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) 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 judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

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. 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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
 

2. POFA 2012 Regulation


a. MET Parking has deliberately chosen not to use the POFA 2012 and has not
shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been liable for the charge (ref: POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).

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. 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 – like in this case - 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.''

b. The MET Parking Notice was not compliant with schedule 4 paragraph 4 POFA 2012 regulations.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met as outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. MET Parking has failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK, as outlined within paragraph 9. Specifically ,there is no mention of the limit of the premises and no warning of the right to recover the full amount after 28 days.

4. Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62

The Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 62 states that there is a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair. 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. This is contrary to the CRA, as it "causes a significant imbalance in the parties; rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer" and as such (1) “An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer."

Article in “The Guardian” about MET Parking and their general practices:
link

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.

To suggest that BP Stansted or Starbucks & McDonalds Stansted car parks are different car parks (albeit managed by MET) is ludicrous. Further to attempt to obtain £100 for the use of a car park for approximately 30 minutes is nothing more than a penalty. It is this type of practice that has led to the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19, currently going through the Houses of Parliament where drivers will receive new legal protections from unscrupulous private parking operators.

For the reasons stated above I kindly request that my appeal is upheld .


I would be grateful for any help with this and thank you in advance.

Redx

not suitable for an appeal to MET , no

use the blue text template from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum

the appeal above is more like the second stage POPLA appeal

there is no "fine" , its an INVOICE , a Parking Charge Notice

MET cannot "fine" anyone, but theya re phishing for the drivers details in their NTK , which is standard practice after enarly 7 years since POFA came in

Le_Kirk

Might be worth a complaint to Steve Clark at BPA that MET are asking for the Registered Keeper (RK) to provide driver's name when there is no requirement in law for the RK to do so. [EMAIL="steve.c@britishparking.co.uk"]steve.c@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]

KeithP

Le_Kirk, within the laws we currently have, I would suggest that it is quite reasonable for a parking company to get the RK's details from the DVLA so that they can ask the keeper who the driver was.

As we know, it is the driver that allegedly entered into any contract.

How else can the PPC get the driver's details?

H8legalscammers

They're really sneaky, I'm not sure if this is new but there's now a drop down box asks if you were the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of contravention .

H8legalscammers

Thanks to all for your help, I really appreciate it.

Egbert_Nobacon

I am sure you were a customer of McDonald’s at the time so a polite request to the CEO may get this cancelled.

Explain how disappointed you are that as a genuine customer your meal has attracted a £100 surcharge and you hope he will intervene.

paul.pomroy@uk.mcd.com.

This has worked previously.

Le_Kirk

KeithP wrote: »

Le_Kirk, within the laws we currently have, I would suggest that it is quite reasonable for a parking company to get the RK's details from the DVLA so that they can ask the keeper who the driver was.

As we know, it is the driver that allegedly entered into any contract.

How else can the PPC get the driver's details?

Noted but my point is that there is no requirement in law (and this was also upheld by Henry Greenslade in the POPLA annual report) so why should any PPC demand the driver's details. The PPC can only get the RK details from DVLA not the driver, as the DVLA do not know who was driving at any time. Why also do we make such a point on the forum of never admitting who was driving if not to protect the defendant under no keeper liability?

KeithP

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Noted but my point is that there is no requirement in law (and this was also upheld by Henry Greenslade in the POPLA annual report) so why should any PPC demand the driver's details. The PPC can only get the RK details from DVLA not the driver, as the DVLA do not know who was driving at any time. Why also do we make such a point on the forum of never admitting who was driving if not to protect the defendant under no keeper liability?

As explained earlier, the PPC can ask the keeper for the driver's details. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yes of course we should continue to encourage keepers not to disclose driver's details, but I think a complaint to the BPA that one of their members is asking for driver's details is inappropriate.

H8legalscammers

Hi all,

Just received a response for my appeal and guess what?, yes they refused it.
Please see the response and I would be grateful for some help regarding Wetherby it's worth a second appeal to POPLA.

Cheers

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge notice.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These
include that parking is for customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum permitted stay in this area
of 30 minutes. Your vehicle remained on site for longer than the maximum permitted stay therefore we believe the
charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
We are confident 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.
Turning to the points that you have made;
Please see attached a copy of the terms and conditions as displayed at the location and all photographs of the
vehicle. These images may also be
We believe we may process the data as it is necessary for pursuing our legitimate interests in seeking
payment of the outstanding charge notice revenue due to us. Should the charge notice remain unpaid we will
disclose all correspondence to our agents and advisers in seeking to recover the outstanding sum due.

Fruitcake

Now you need to construct a PoPLA appeal using all the points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES, and post your draft here for checking before you submit it.

Read other threads for the same location as well.

The usual points should include all the following if relevant.
Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges
Inadequate signage
Grace periods
Non PoFA complaint NTK