Mcdonalds Gatwick, MET parking NTK's

Coupon-mad

Show us what you intend to submit.  We rarely have time to trawl back and read older posts.

Jughead_2024

"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"

I need to work out where best to add in the additional info about the breach of CoP and map of Gatwick. Will probably have time to look at it tomorrow but any suggestions are welcome. Thanks.

prowla

LDast said:

Be very careful how you word anything that could give rise to suspicion that the keeper was also the driver. You said above:

On the 15th April 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”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

Whilst not identifying the driver is perfectly legal, the above highlighted sentence could give rise to a suspicion that the keeper was also the driver. Unless clarified, only the driver would know whether a windscreen ticket was left on the vehicle or not. 

It is superfluous and not required and introduces an element of doubt in the appellants statement. Whilst it may not be obvious to the appellant/keeper, it is obvious to  anyone who is familiar with PoFA that the operator would have referred to PoFA paragraph 8, not 9, if the NtK was issued after a “windscreen” ticket (Notice to Driver) had been issued. 

"There is no evidence that a windscreen ticket was appllied"? Or do you just leave mention of it out altogether?

Coupon-mad

"POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)"

That decision is too old and was by the previous iteration of POPLA not the current one.

LDast

Point 1 should be the fact that there can be no Keeper liability because the location is on land under statutory control and therefore is not Relevant Land for the purposes of PoFA.

Point 2 should then be no evidence that the person the operator is pursuing is the driver.

That flows so the dim-wittedness of the assessor is not challenged too badly. 1. No keeper liability. 2. No driver identity. Ergo... Catch-22 for the operator.

Jughead_2024

LDast said:

Point 1 should be the fact that there can be no Keeper liability because the location is on land under statutory control and therefore is not Relevant Land for the purposes of PoFA.

Point 2 should then be no evidence that the person the operator is pursuing is the driver.

That flows so the dim-wittedness of the assessor is not challenged too badly. 1. No keeper liability. 2. No driver identity. Ergo... Catch-22 for the operator.

So swap points 1 and 2 around, got it. Looking at it now, will post what I've done to it in a few minutes. Thanks.

Jughead_2024

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

2.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

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) 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.’

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.

By breaching the CoP, they have breached the KADOE contract and therefore obtained the keepers data unlawfully.

Map showing LGW boundary:

2)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).

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

Coupon-mad said:

"POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)"

That decision is too old and was by the previous iteration of POPLA not the current one.

Will it hurt to leave this in there though as they can still look into it if they are not already aware?

Jughead_2024

Got the rejection from MET for the second ntk now.

Anything I need to adjust in the above before I send it in to POPLA for both NTKs?

Coupon-mad

Jughead_2024 said:

Coupon-mad said:

"POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)"

That decision is too old and was by the previous iteration of POPLA not the current one.

Will it hurt to leave this in there though as they can still look into it if they are not already aware?

I wouldn't. It's years old.