MET PCN at BP Stanstead SF CM24 1PY

Horseleas

Okay I will. Thank you 😊 

Horseleas

Hello So i deleted 3 - 9 completely and added this: 

1.      Non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states the following:

(9)(1)(a) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b)is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must:

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

The Notice to Keeper claims the vehicle entered BP Connect Stansted at xxxx on xxx and departed at xxx on xxxx. From this information, MET Parking Services Ltd appear to have extrapolated that the vehicle was ‘parked’ at the location for a period of 48 minutes and state that the parking charge relates to a ‘period of parking’. I contest that it is not for MET Parking Services Ltd to calculate a period of ‘parking’ based purely on the time of entry to and exit from a particular location. By virtue of the nature of an Automatic Number plate Recognition (ANPR) system, in that it only records entry and exit times, MET Parking Services Ltd is unable to definitively state the period of parking as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act. Additionally, no photographic evidence (or any other form of evidence) has been supplied showing the vehicle parked at the site as alleged.

Met Parking Services Ltd is put to strict proof in evidencing the fact that the vehicle in question was parked at the site of the alleged contravention for the period of time alleged in the Notice to Keeper.

The Protection of Freedoms Act continues:

(9)(2)(f) The notice must...warn the keper 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 parking 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 that amount as remains unpaid.

 Nowhere in the original Notice to Keeper or the subsequent letter dated 05/12/2023 rejecting the appeal does it state that MET Parking Services Ltd‘ will have the right to recover from the keper so much of that amount that remains unpaid’. Therefore, the Notice to Keeper is in breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

There is no evidence that MET Parking Services Ltd has fully complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requirements and as the keeper, I therefore require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA 


Do you think just those 3 are going to do? Thank you 

Coupon-mad

Yes that's probably the main points.  MET may not have staff to contest it over Xmas/New Year, so get it in this weekend.

MothballsWallet

Horseleas said:

But I did admitted driving to MET. Should I put it there anyway? 

Should I remove everything just to leave the first 2 points? Shouldn't I mention my medical emergency? 

Thank you 

OP, trust @Coupon-mad - she knows what she's talking about.

(As do the other regulars on this board.)

Horseleas

Hello guys  so I am here with an updated. MET parking submitted their evidence and sent this: 

Operator Case Summary

In the appeal to POPLA Mrs xxxxx raises the following grounds for appeal:

 • Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant We note that Mrs xxxxx has chosen to submit an internet template appeal to POPLA, however, her initial appeal to us was made in her own words. In that appeal she acknowledged that she was the driver of the vehicle. As such, she is the liable individual for the charge, and we are not seeking registered keeper liability under PoFA 2012.

• Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. Please note this site is a 24-hour petrol station therefore it is illuminated during the hours of darkness so that motorists can see to fill up with fuel and purchase items from the shop. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations. We would point out that there is no requirement to have signage displayed on shop fronts or in shop windows when managing a car park. A motorist does not have to have read the terms and conditions of parking to enter into a parking contract, there is only the requirement that the parking operator affords them the opportunity to do so. As stated, we are confident that there is sufficient signage at the site in order to afford motorists the chance to read the terms and conditions that are in place. Upon entry to the site, it is the motorist’s obligation to seek out any terms and conditions that may be in place before choosing to park or remain on site.

• The charge is out of proportion We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis which may be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf. This ruling revolved around a charge of similar size and nature and the judges ruled that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable. 

Horseleas

• No evidence of Landowner Authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.dar The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around this service station. These include that parking is for BP customers while they are on the premises only, that there is a maximum permitted stay of 30 minutes and no return is permitted within 4 hours. As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates and the driver acknowledges, the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

Coupon-mad

What does the landowner doc look like?

Anything else in the pack you think is weak? Undated or old pics of signs, not taken in the same lighting conditions, etc.?

Horseleas

This is almost everything they put as evidence.  Lighting is not the same. The pictures were taking next to a lamp post.  Even the big A4 signs are unreadable on the bottom How can person read it in the night in much smaller version.  The landlord contact is also unreadable I am surprised that POPLA accepts such an poor evidence.  

Horseleas

This is the landlord contact 

Horseleas

Their pictures in day light