Mcdonalds Gatwick, MET parking NTK's

Jughead_2024

Yes that part relates to the 28 day warning, my NTK has that on it.

2nd go:

"Dear POPLA,

On the 6th August 2024, MET Parking Services issued a parking charge to me (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

2.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

3.Unclear signage

4.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

Please see below for details

1)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have MET PArking Services provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

3) I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event.

I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. 

As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

4) As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME"

Jughead_2024

Thank you both for the help.

Coupon-mad

Jughead_2024 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You should add a point to explain to the POPLA Assessor how the NTK is non-compliant with the POFA (the wording omissions from Schedule 4 paragraph 9).

That relates to the 28 day warning does it not? Mine has that on it.

So it complies with POFA and exactly matches the POFA one on my NTK pictures thread?

If so, you will need instead to add a map of Gatwick Airport taken from the website or byelaws pages to prove that this place is within the Airport site. MET will say it isn't so you must pre-empt that argument by showing it is.

Jughead_2024

Coupon-mad said:

Jughead_2024 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You should add a point to explain to the POPLA Assessor how the NTK is non-compliant with the POFA (the wording omissions from Schedule 4 paragraph 9).

That relates to the 28 day warning does it not? Mine has that on it.

So it complies with POFA and exactly matches the POFA one on my NTK pictures thread?

If so, you will need instead to add a map of Gatwick Airport taken from the website or byelaws pages to prove that this place is within the Airport site. MET will say it isn't so you must pre-empt that argument by showing it is.

I couldn't see one that matched mine the last time I looked in that thread but I'll look again.

Jughead_2024

I can only see the Non POFA one on page 5, searching on my phone so maybe I've missed the POFA one from Met?

I was planning on supplying my one for the thread as an example anyway so will look at uploading it somewhere later on today as heading out atm.

LDast

Point out that MET is in breach of the new joint CoP by issuing a PoFA NtK for an alleged breach of contract on land that is under statutory control.

PoFA simply does not apply on this land, whether the NtK is compliant or not. 

Map showing LGW boundary:

Coupon-mad

Could you show us a picture of both sides of the NTK please? We can check it for compliance and I'll add it to the NTK thread.

Jughead_2024

Coupon-mad said:

Could you show us a picture of both sides of the NTK please? We can check it for compliance and I'll add it to the NTK thread.

Apparently I have enough posts under my belt now that I don't need to host the images. Result lol

LDast

Issuing a PoFA NtK for parking on non-relevant land is a breach of their CoP. By breaching the CoP, they have breached the KADOE contract and therefore obtained the keepers data unlawfully. 

By breaching the keepers GDPR, the keeper is entitled to compensation under the Data Protection Act 2018. Also, I will hazard a guess the the contract MET have is with McDonalds and does not flow from the landowner. Another breach of the CoP  

They have issued the PCN unlawfully. Have a read of this:

Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately. If a data controller, such as a private parking company, unlawfully obtains the keeper's data from the DVLA and issues an invoice based on inaccurate information, claiming you parked in breach of an alleged contract with the landowner (or their agent), this constitutes processing your personal data inaccurately and unlawfully under the UK GDPR.

The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing of personal data can be found in cases like Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333, where the court awarded compensation for distress caused by the inaccurate processing of personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998. Although this case was decided under the old law, similar principles apply under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, individuals have the right to compensation if they suffer material or non-material damage because of a breach of data protection laws.

Additionally, the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 confirmed that claimants could recover compensation for distress alone under the Data Protection Act 1998, a principle now similarly recognised under the GDPR. This means that even if you have not suffered tangible financial loss, you may still be entitled to compensation for distress caused by the unlawful processing of your data.

Moreover, in Tetragon Financial Group Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKUT 0305 (TCC), the court reiterated the importance of accurate data handling by public bodies. This principle can be applied here, as the DVLA, a public body, must ensure that any data it provides to third parties, such as private parking companies, is used lawfully and accurately. If a private parking company unlawfully obtained your data from the DVLA and processed it inaccurately, you have grounds to seek compensation.

To seek compensation for the unlawful processing of your personal data, you should provide 21 days’ notice (the pre-action protocol typically requires 14 days, but a longer notice can show goodwill) to the data controller, in this case, the private parking company, of your intention to claim damages. You might claim £100 for nominal damages under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This notice should clearly state that you will file a claim with the County Court if they do not confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within 14 days. Be sure to mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings."

As a litigant-in-person, you can file your claim under Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (often referred to as the "Small Claims Court"). Each party is responsible for their own legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and the claim can be filed online for a fee of £35 via the Money Claim Online service (moneyclaimonline.gov.uk). The successful party can recover their court fees, making the total claim amount £135.

Jughead_2024

Right now i just want these two NTKs cancelled.

As MET have given me a POPLA code for the first one (still waiting on the second rejection) how do I best modify what I was going to send POPLA to include the latest info? Add it on at the end? Sorry I'm at work today so limited to my phone.

Maybe I should stick with what I posted before?