MET PCN at BP Stanstead SF CM24 1PY

Horseleas

And in night time next to a lamp post. The entrence signs is not next to lamp 

Horseleas

Landowner authority 

Coupon-mad

Horseleas said:

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.  

Did they attach a copy of your appeal saying you were the driver?

If yes, concentrate your comments this weekend on the two things you noticed above.

Horseleas

Yes they have attached it and they said that the first appeal was in with my own words and then that I appealed to POPLa with an interest version.  Well I did work on that appeal for days.  I had to study and read what I put there so it wasn't just uploaded from Internet.  

I will concentrate on the 2 comments as you said. Is there any other comment I could put? 

Horseleas

I found something it might be useful. The contract between the MET and BP is for postcode CM24 1AA the NTK is from postcode CM24 1PY.  Is that some how relevant? 

Fruitcake

It is relevant and should be part of your, Not the landowner, no standing to issue charges, no contract with or flowing from the landowner points because the contract is for a completely different location.

Horseleas

I read all the submitted documents and I am not sure that this one says. Does it mean that this Afreement needs to renewed as there is fixed period 12 months OR that it will continue until its terminated? 

Thank you

troublemaker22

continues until terminated

Horseleas

Hello there. I worked on my comments during the weekend. I have until 17/01/24 to submit them. I have 10 000 letters to use. 
I am not sure how to start the comments so I just started with the signs.

Insufficient signs

Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces. Section 19 of the Code of Practice says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms.

No consideration/acceptance flowed to and from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not 'customers' of MET Parking Services and not expecting to read a contract when they park at an a BP Services in front of a M&S Foot Store. It would be necessary for any signs in the car park to be so prominent that the terms must have been seen/accepted by the driver.

No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

The signs there now are certainly not 'startling'. The signs there are few and far between. The restrictions were not obvious and nor were the terms drawn to the driver's attention - and certainly not the risk of any hefty 'charge'.

Small text fond

 In this case the operator provided close up images of  signs in the PC version on  A4 format and still the text is illegible and they are not easy to see, read and understand.   In contrast to the huge font the ‘parking charges’ were displayed in, the Terms and Conditions relating to any additional punitive parking charge were buried in the small print which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle.

Side Plan

Additional to this the site plan and signage document provided by the operator is updated and doesn't represent the real time of the event. All the pictures of signs are 2 years old. Some of the signs on the plan are no longer in use as numbers 22 & 23 are not displayed on the M&S food store window anymore. Sign 4&5 are facing the wrong direction, unable to read when the driver approaches the sign. It’s designed to catch out people who don’t know it’s going on.

Operator fails to provide photo evidence of signs taken during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. No evidence has been provided of the car park itself during darkness. Nor has evidence been provided which would demonstrate whether the signs can be read when a light source is shone upon them for instance from a car. 

 Driver entered the car park at 11pm at darkness and was not able to spot the sign high on the post at the entrance from a moving car with no sufficient post lighting. There was no other sign when driving across the petrol station straight to the front of the M&S food store nor in front of the door entrance to the food store. 

 I put this operator to strict proof of 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.

No Landowner Authority, no standing to issue charges

There is no evidence of landowner authority and the operator does not have authority to issue charges on this location. The Parking Enforcement Agreement provided by the operator is issued to manage a car park on a completely different location with postcode: CM24 1AA. The NTC  is issued from location with postcode CM24 1PY. In this instance there is no contract with or flowing from the landowner. This proves that the contract is incorrect and the operator is not following the terms of the contract. The BPA has a Code of Practice which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner to manage the land in question.

Nor this document defines 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,  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.

 

Based on the above arguments, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread suggests concise bullet points, not sentences.  You can't appeal allover again so keep it snappy and on point.