Quarterly Gift from my partner - PCN from MET for overstaying parking

Zbubuman

Not_A_Hope said:

I have just Googled and found the Krispy Kreme, New Malden website. On the ‘See outside’ section it provides access to StreetView of their car park. Comparing that with the single photo on the NTK it is clear from the road markings they have taken a photo of the car entering the car park. They have not provided any evidence of a breach

I know. I think as the person in receipt of the NTK you are supposed to play detective and calculate that the time you entered by looking at the time stamped photo, then you need to realise the 12:28 is probably the time you exited the location. Work out the difference, then try to remember what the maximum stay was at this location. 

Another thing I realised which I am putting in my appeal ( will post the final draft here once it's all ready) is that the NTK states " The reason for issuing the charge notice is :  Parking Longer than allowed" However they are basing their breach on entry/exit which would constitute "length of stay" and not the actual "Period of Parking"

I will go to the location myself next week, as the photos from my GF are rubbish, but i also suspect that since the last GSV Photos were taken, there is no longer a sign at the entry/exit boundary ( first one is above the Krispy Kreme Drive through sign) high up and not at a good angle to be easily visible by someone driving in. The other signs are attached behind the parking bays, so they tend to be obstructed by large vehicle or limit access to be viewed at close range by disabled persons or persons with young kids ( all points which I will be raising).

Zbubuman

Ok finished my lovely photo session and prepared the PDF to send to POPLA with my appeal. Could you lovely people give it a once over and let me know if there is anything i need to change or correct! 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v_qcqduClPXiOZ3QbtejbcYjf7sYKhT_/view?usp=drive_link  ( hopefully I did this correctly and you can open the link) 

Not_A_Hope

Just a couple of comments on a quick scan. I think you are missing pointing out that METs evidence is a single photo of your car entering the car park. You appear to have duplicated the ‘burden of proof’ in section 3 in section 4 as well. Suspect there may be other duplications

Zbubuman

Not_A_Hope said:

Just a couple of comments on a quick scan. I think you are missing pointing out that METs evidence is a single photo of your car entering the car park. You appear to have duplicated the ‘burden of proof’ in section 3 in section 4 as well. Suspect there may be other duplications

Thanks. The only reason I didn't point out the single photo as evidence is that when you log on their website to view the PCN details there are more photos available. Mainly 4 in total: 1 showing entry as per the NTK, 1 showing exit and 2 close-up shots of the vehicle reg ( appear to be cropped).  I suspect Met would submit these as evidence.  

Zbubuman

Just curious - So file is still with POPLA and status is showing as waiting on parking company to submit their information. However, when I tried to log on MET's website to check the details of the PCN, the file cannot be located anymore. 

Does this mean that MET have already cancelled from their end, but POPLA are yet to process the withdrawal at their end ? 

LDast

Zbubuman said:

Does this mean that MET have already cancelled from their end, but POPLA are yet to process the withdrawal at their end ? 

How long is a piece of string? Patience is a virtue. 

Zbubuman

Seems that MET are willing to step into the ring on this one.  Below is their response to the appeal ( complete with typos and spelling mistakes).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GLoQpvSqerzSX0YMSCq8I3ZGA2RmNIVd/view?usp=drive_link

So where to begin. 

1 .Typo where they mention 690 minutes allowance( I'm fine then because we did not exceed 690 minutes  )
2. They mention appeal received from the driver ( Appeal was sent a the registered keeper, and driver was never identified)
3. Site plan used is old ( entry sign sign 1. is no longer there and it has replaced sign 8) - photos on my original appeal.
4. Entrance sign is no longer there ( old stock photo from MET)
5. Met parking sign with T&C - ( old stock photo from MET) - Current signs are different as per photo on my appeal to popla. 
6. Met parking sign with T&C - this is a close-up shot supplied by MET and still you can barely read it ( let alone when you are supposed to read and understand it before leaving the vehicle).
7. Photos with sign location ( again relying on old stock footage). Entry sign no longer there, sign 8 replaced by entry sign. Signs have been changed/updated and style/layout is different. 
8. They are relying on exceeding maximum stay, but NTK states parking longer than allowed. 
9.etc

Based on the above, i plan to go to town with regards to the signage and that these are old stock photos. Signs and layout has changed and therefore cannot be relied on as evidence of the present situation. 

Will stress again that the PCN states parking longer than allowed, but they are now trying to change this to exceeding maximum stay.

Will stress again that contrary to their statement the NTK is not poFA compliant. Does not adequately state the period of parking, and they are trying to mislead the adjudicator. 

Not sure whether to mention the 690 minutes and referring to the appellant as the driver ( at least show their level of incompetence) .

LDast

You can only respond using the text box which limits you to 10,000 (I think) characters which includes spaces and punctuation.

So, use a text editor that gives you a character count and point out any of your original points that were no rebutted or answered and then rebut any of their points. Just remember the 10k character count so don't go War 7 Peace with it.

The "690" minute type is a non-starter. The assessor is solely assessing whether the PCN was issued correctly. Nothing else.

Zbubuman

so have prepared the below to send to Popla. Please let me know if i missed anything or there is something which i should add? 

1.      Met State: Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site – these terms can be seen on the photograph of the sign attached in Section E

My Response: Met Parking are relying on old and outdated stock photos & site plan which do not reflect the current signage and location of signs in this car park. This appears to be a poor attempt by Met Parking to mislead Popla’s adjudicator; the photo evidence in Section E cannot be relied upon and must be disregarded. (See point 5)

2.      Met State: The parking charge notice was issued for exceeding the maximum permitted stay. This car park is managed using parking attendant patrols.

 

My Response: As per the NTK, the above statement is untrue. NTK states Parking Longer than allowed (not exceeding maximum stay). PCN was issued using ANPR technology (no windscreen PCN by a parking attendant).

 

3.      Met State: On 10/05/2024 we received an appeal from the driver, Miss XXXXX.

 

My Response: Appeal was sent as the registered keeper. The driver was never identified, and Met Parking are making assumptions that Miss XXXXX was the driver, or this is another poor attempt to mislead Popla.

 

4.      Met State: We are confident that we have complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack.

 

My Response: The NTK is not PoFA 2012 compliant. The notice provides the date and time of the alleged incident, and states “the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above.”  Since the notice does not specify the period of parking (itself), as per PoFA requirements, keeper liability cannot be applied. 

 

No evidence of period parked – As stated in the NTK; the reason for issue of the PCN is : Parking Longer than allowed. MET are relying on entry/exit times provided by their ANPR system and no evidence has been provided of the actual period in which the vehicle was parked (Vehicle is fully stopped and driver has left the vehicle).

 

The Legal defintion of parking comes from Lord Greene’s judgment Ashby v Tolhurst (1937). He held:

 

You take a car park ticket in order to obtain permission to park your car at a particular place, and parking your car means, I should have thought, leaving your car in the place. If you park your car in the street you are liable to get into trouble with the police. On the other hand, you are entitled to park your car in places indicated by the police or the appropriate authorities for the purpose. Parking a car is leaving a car and, I should have thought, nothing else.

 

5.      Met State: 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.

 

My Response: As mentioned, Met Parking have provided old, outdated and obsolete photos of their signs and site plan; which do not reflect the present position of the signage at this car park. I hereby invite the adjudicator to compare against the photos I have supplied in my initial application which were taken approximately 4 weeks after the alleged contravention (copies of the original photos can be supplied upon request, so the adjudicator can examine the meta data to confirm time and location these were taken).

 

·         Site Plan – Entry sign (sign 1) is no longer present. Please refer to photos 1 & 2 in my initial appeal document which confirm this. Should the adjudicator deem it necessary, a Google Maps search will also confirm that this sign has not been present since at least August 2021.

·         MET Parking entrance sign – As mentioned above, this sign is no longer present at the location. Its current placement is in location 8 as per MET’s site plan. Please refer to photos 2 & 3 on my initial application which shows inadequate placement (does not display full terms, high up a pole and hard to read from driver’s perspective). Lack of entrance sign also does not provide clear boundary of the car park area.  This is in breach of the BPA guideline 19.2 which states:

 

Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

 

·         Met Parking sign showing the terms and conditions – Old signage which is no longer present at this location. This is a poor attempt by Met to rely on stock photos of old signage which is no longer relevant. Please refer to photo 7 of my original application for an example of the current signage. 

·         Photographs of some of the signage around the site – Sign 1 no longer present, Signs 2,3,4,5,6,7,9 show old format and cannot be relied upon. Sign 8 now replaced by entry sign which is difficult to read from driver’s perspective, see photo 3 on initial application.

·         Orientation Photos – As already demonstrated; the photo evidence is supplied by MET is outdated and cannot be relied upon. Layout of the signs has changed with some of the signs no longer present or in their original positioning.

 

Met Parking have supplied a photo of their sign showing the full terms and conditions. Whilst this cannot be relied upon as the signage has changed, the font size and layout of the information is not dissimilar to the present signage. The photo provided by Met is taken at close range in ideal conditions, yet the writing is still miniscule and hard to read. As showing in photos 1 – 8 of my original application, all the signs in this car park are either mounted high on poles or obstructed by other parked vehicles. It is impossible to read the full terms without exiting the vehicle and trying to squeeze between other parked vehicles. This is in breach of BPA code 19.9 :

 

So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.

 

6.      Met State: The BPA Code of Practice states that a 10-minute grace period must be given at the end of a permitted period of parking. This has been provided and the motorist exceeded the maximum permitted stay by more than the 10-minute grace period. There is no requirement to add a grace period prior to the parking event commencing.  

 

My Response: Again Met are relying on entry/exit times and they have not supplied any evidence as to when the vehicle was actually parked.

 

7.      The ANPR system is Neither Reliable nor Accurate – Met did not comment on this.

 

My Response: My initial comments still stand in that ANPR systems are inaccurate and unreliable hence why local authorities are not permitted to use them in their car parks. Met has not supplied any evidence to show the calibration and testing of their systems to show that their time keeping is accurate or that they are not mistakenly recording motorists who just happen to drive by.

 

8.      Met State: The ANPR system recorded clear entry and exit times on the date in question, as evidenced in Section E of this pack. As can be seen on the copies of the signs found in Section E of our evidence pack, motorists are advised that CCTV/ANPR in effect in this car park and that by entering the area motorists’ consent to the recording of their data for the purposes of managing the car park.

 

My Response: Met are relying on old photos of signage which is no longer present in this car park. Please refer to photo 7 of my original application which shows the current version of the signage.  Current signage does not clearly indicate the commercial purposes of the ANPR system. This is another breach of BPA guidelines.

 

The above together with the fact that MET are deliberately using old stock photos to give the impression that this is a properly managed car park should be enough grounds to uphold this appeal and dismiss the PCN.

Zbubuman

This is weird! So, this morning I went to login on the popla page to track the appeal.  It was in the assessment stage for the past few weeks, but as of this morning it has reverted back to the operator evidence stage!

Should I be concerned and give popla a ring about this ?