POPLA appeal - MET parking -McDonalds Lakeside(Please help urgently as POPLA window closes today)

Zbubuman

If you still have time Re-visit the site and take plenty of photos of the signs and layout of the signs. Met are renowned for submitting outdated photos and site plans ( they will usually submit the original photos of when the contract was formed with the landowner)which on most cases are no longer relevant. Take photos and include them in your appeal about inadequate signs. Then when they submit that BS photos and site plan you can refer back to the photos you took. 

paulstevens64

You need to guide the assessor through the Non-POFA point step by step. state in great detail why the NTK is not POFA compliant, then quote the relevant sections of the POFA to back up your point, then conclude that you the keeper cannot he held liable.

Spicygem

Zbubuman said:

If you still have time Re-visit the site and take plenty of photos of the signs and layout of the signs. Met are renowned for submitting outdated photos and site plans ( they will usually submit the original photos of when the contract was formed with the landowner)which on most cases are no longer relevant. Take photos and include them in your appeal about inadequate signs. Then when they submit that BS photos and site plan you can refer back to the photos you took. 

Thanks Does it matter if there were lots of signs? i'm thinking that it may not be as strong argument as the non POFA so should i exclude from the POPLA appeal and just focus on the other strong points?

Spicygem

paulstevens64 said:

You need to guide the assessor through the Non-POFA point step by step. state in great detail why the NTK is not POFA compliant, then quote the relevant sections of the POFA to back up your point, then conclude that you the keeper cannot he held liable.

Thanks Do you think the draft i posted last night covers your points in enough detail?

Coupon-mad

Quote the relevant sections of Schedule 4.

Spicygem

Coupon-mad said:

Quote the relevant sections of Schedule 4.

I'm so sorry if this is painfully obvious in your newbies thread, but i thought i already quoted schedule 4  as per extract below:

 "

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to not giving the warning required under schedule 4 paragraph 9 sub-paragraph 2f.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2f) of the POFA, the notice must warn the keeper 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;

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 stated in paragraph 9. MET Parking Services have failed to fulfil these conditions in the NTK issued.

 

2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates.

 

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 must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Met Parking have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording: -

’’The notice must be given by—

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

 

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore,

paragraph 9(5) states:

’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

 

The NTK sent to me as Registered Keeper arrived some 19 days after the alleged event.  The date that they describe as the ‘Date of issue”’ on the NTK is 16 days after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date of issue”’, it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or ‘given’, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that Met Parking have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

"

If this isn't the relevant section, could you kindly share a post where i can grab it from? 

Zbubuman

Spicygem said:

Zbubuman said:

If you still have time Re-visit the site and take plenty of photos of the signs and layout of the signs. Met are renowned for submitting outdated photos and site plans ( they will usually submit the original photos of when the contract was formed with the landowner)which on most cases are no longer relevant. Take photos and include them in your appeal about inadequate signs. Then when they submit that BS photos and site plan you can refer back to the photos you took. 

Thanks Does it matter if there were lots of signs? i'm thinking that it may not be as strong argument as the non POFA so should i exclude from the POPLA appeal and just focus on the other strong points?

It depends. there are always two sides to an argument. whilst there might be plenty of signs around, are they easy to access or are they obstructed by other parked vehicles? how big is the writing ? are they high up or at weird angles? Are you able to read any of the signs without having to exit the vehicle. Is there an entry sign at the boundary warning that you are entering a private car park ( this is important as I have seen plenty of cases where it has been removed, but MET will send old photos implying that it is still there!).

Once MET submit their evidence pack. You job is to put doubt into the assessor's head. If you can prove that MET are lying about one of the signs ( no longer there or different wording/format), then who is to say that the other signs are also correct? MET could state in their evidence pack that there are 20 signs, but if you can show that a few of these are missing, than are there still 20 signs around or is it just a handful now? 

It would still be advisable to appeal about inadequate signage. The tactic is to throw as much Sh*t against the wall as possible, and hopefully something will stick. Remember that it will only take 1 valid point for the assessor to allow the appeal, so the more points you complain about the better, and it also makes it harder for MET to defend.  It is not a Guarantee, but if they are faced with a 20 page document with multiple points, MET might just decide that it is not worth the hassle and discontinue just on this basis. 

Spicygem

Zbubuman said:

Spicygem said:

Zbubuman said:

If you still have time Re-visit the site and take plenty of photos of the signs and layout of the signs. Met are renowned for submitting outdated photos and site plans ( they will usually submit the original photos of when the contract was formed with the landowner)which on most cases are no longer relevant. Take photos and include them in your appeal about inadequate signs. Then when they submit that BS photos and site plan you can refer back to the photos you took. 

Thanks Does it matter if there were lots of signs? i'm thinking that it may not be as strong argument as the non POFA so should i exclude from the POPLA appeal and just focus on the other strong points?

It depends. there are always two sides to an argument. whilst there might be plenty of signs around, are they easy to access or are they obstructed by other parked vehicles? how big is the writing ? are they high up or at weird angles? Are you able to read any of the signs without having to exit the vehicle. Is there an entry sign at the boundary warning that you are entering a private car park ( this is important as I have seen plenty of cases where it has been removed, but MET will send old photos implying that it is still there!).

Once MET submit their evidence pack. You job is to put doubt into the assessor's head. If you can prove that MET are lying about one of the signs ( no longer there or different wording/format), then who is to say that the other signs are also correct? MET could state in their evidence pack that there are 20 signs, but if you can show that a few of these are missing, than are there still 20 signs around or is it just a handful now? 

It would still be advisable to appeal about inadequate signage. The tactic is to throw as much Sh*t against the wall as possible, and hopefully something will stick. Remember that it will only take 1 valid point for the assessor to allow the appeal, so the more points you complain about the better, and it also makes it harder for MET to defend.  It is not a Guarantee, but if they are faced with a 20 page document with multiple points, MET might just decide that it is not worth the hassle and discontinue just on this basis. 

That makes perfect sense thank you. I’ll certainly get some pictures tonight then before I send off the appeal.

LDast

You are raising as many points as possible because the PPC has to rebut each and every one of them. You only have to win on a single point.

Coupon-mad

And yes on review I see you have the POFA point covered.  All good.