Van Hire Company passing on charge for MET Parking Charge Notice (BP Stansted)

Bakewell70

Coupon Mad - I think you might be confusing my case
I have the POPLA code from the rejection letter that MET sent to the Hire Co (but that is in the name of Hire Co)
There is no new address - and the hire firm havent transferred liability they have simply said that I can appeal if I want to (they usally pay and recover from hiree but on this occaision our credit card they hold was declined) 

Coupon-mad

Oh - appeal to POPLA as them then, but give your email as the contact.

DO NOT TICK THAT YOU ARE APPEALING 'ON BEHALF OF' THEM.

Bakewell70

So if I appeal as the Hire Company (ie not an individual) is there anything different I need to add/amend on my appeal? I have come across the appeal below which has similarilities to my case but this is written from an individual's perspective. This is just the Summary - the author has a very detailed full appeal where each of these 6 points are expanded upon. 

Do you think this is the kind of approach I should take ?

**Summary of Appeal:** 

1. **No Compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) Served - No Keeper Liability:**

   MET Parking (UK) Ltd failed to fulfil the 'second condition' for keeper liability, as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. Without a proper NTK, they lack lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from me, the registered keeper appellant. 

2. **Airport Land Is Not 'Relevant Land':**

   Under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, Airport land falls outside the definition of 'relevant land.' As the location in question is subject to airport bylaws, it is not governed by POFA, and 'keeper liability' is not applicable.

3. **MET Using Airport Byelaw for Claims:**

   MET's claim appears to rely on airport byelaws. I challenge them to provide specific details on which byelaw they claim was broken and why this would obligate payment to MET.

4. **Appellant Not Being the Individual Liable:**

   MET has not established that the individual they are pursuing is the liable driver. Without proper evidence, POPLA must consider whether the assessor can confidently identify the driver.

5. **Non-Compliant Signage:**

   MET's signs are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces, violating POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice. The entrance signs do not meet the requirement of being visible at the time of parking, and the lack of clear site boundaries renders any contract invalid.

6. **Lack of Standing/Authority from Landowner:**

   MET needs to demonstrate written authority from the landowner, as required by Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The mere site agreement as a contractor is insufficient to grant MET the right to sue in their name.

 

Any comments very welcomed. Thanks

Coupon-mad

If you do it as the company include the observation at the start that the appellant is a company & as such, cannot have been 'the driver' , so cannot be liable.

Bakewell70

Coupon-mad: thank you I shall include that line. Do you think the content/wording of the appeal I pasted on here is OK and if so should I use the extended/detailed version or just this summary? 

Coupon-mad

Yes it's enough to win.

This line needs replacing with the bit I said:

"MET has not established that the individual they are pursuing is the liable driver."

LDast

Personally, as you have been let off the hook by virtue of your credit card not accepting the charge from the obviously intellectually malnourished car hire firm, I would just let the hire firm sort it out themselves.

It is only thanks to their ineptness that they have ended top in this situation. Whilst it is only the driver that can be liable for the charge, the hire company should learn about this from their own mistakes and waste their own time and effort in getting themselves off the hook for what is an easily defended claim for debt.

Appealing to POPLA as (on behalf of) the hire company does you no favours. If POPLA refuse the appeal, the hire company, assuming they are as dim as a 5W lightbulb, will either try and chase you, the hirer for their own stupidity, which you are not liable for, or else just deal with it themselves.

Rather than learn from the mistakes of others, the hire company will be better educated if they learn from their own mistakes.

Bakewell70

UPDATE: so I did the POPLA appeal as the Hire Company and was successful.