MET NTK Parking Charge Notice BP Stansted non PoFA notice which contains the PoFA warning

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter - because you won't be paying - but yes it's been discussed before. 

russiangoldfinch

Thank you. I am just looking but cannot see whether there has been a conclusive finding on this particular point given all the messing around by the private operators and POPLA, all the different decisions etc. -  and I honestly think that this is our only ground for appeal as I have no evidence on the signage

ChirpyChicken

Just do the appeal as advised

Coupon-mad

russiangoldfinch said:

Thank you. I am just looking but cannot see whether there has been a conclusive finding on this particular point given all the messing around by the private operators and POPLA, all the different decisions etc. -  and I honestly think that this is our only ground for appeal as I have no evidence on the signage

But it doesn't matter.  I tell relatives not to waste their time on POPLA.  I wouldn't!

Just ignore them until LBC stage. Second post of the NEWBIES thread. 

russiangoldfinch

How confusing when so much on this forum is about POPLA appeals ----- but then it seems that POPLA is toothless and /or not long for this world ? Perhaps a lot of information on here is out of date ?  I am keen to make an appeal and have studied the Newbies thread which had variously advised to complain to BP, then appeal to MET then to POPLA (Plans A B and C etc ) and having studied other parts of this forum if there are solid arguments I am very keen to put them forward but otherwise honestly I am not that litigious and would not have the time or money to take this to court. This all starts to feel a bit horrific and i wonder quite what I am getting into !

ChirpyChicken

You over thinking this that's the issue

russiangoldfinch

Ha ! You are not the first person to say this to me. The driver for example ..... anyway I have now submitted an appeal to MET --- here is the text ---- I hope that this works :

Dear Met Parking Services, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle   xxxxx and I have received the Notice to Keeper (NTK). I can advise you that I was not the driver on 22nd December and I note that you have confirmed that you have not identified the driver. I understand that there is no legal obligation for me to identify the driver. I appreciate the distinction between the driver and the keeper and I understand the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). My main reason for submitting this appeal to you is that the 28 day warning you have given in your NTK purports to make me liable as though the provisions of POFA apply to me. This is very misleading as it is legally incorrect because the BP Connect site at Southgate Road Stansted is within the airport boundary and as such cannot be held to be 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. This is because the airport land at Stansted falls outside the definition of 'relevant land' as it is subject to the Stansted-London byelaws which came into effect in December 1996. I am surprised to see the 28 day warning within your NTK with no express reference to POFA. Your NTK makes it look as though you can make me liable if you cannot identify the driver which I submit is simply incorrect in this case. I respectfully request that as you have confirmed that you cannot identiy the driver, as I am not willing nor obliged to provide such information and as you are not in a position to pursue a parking charge from me because of the location on Stansted Airport land, you withdraw the NTK. I refer you to the definition of 'relevant land' which means any land OTHER THAN land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. This means that you can only pursue the driver where the driver is identified. You do not have the right to pursue the keeper because POFA is simply not applicable in this case. I hope that you can agree this immediately because this is a point which has been the subject of appeals and complaints to both POPLA and the BPA and it has been categorically acknowledged that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control, this is not a matter for dispute, it is in fact completely uncontroversial and established fact that it is incorrect to classify land within its boundaries as 'relevant land', whatever its ownership status, if it is within the airport boundaries. I respectfully submit to you that the 28 day warning cannot stand independently of POFA and the keeper cannot be liable. I do also wish to appeal against any suggestion that the driver entered into any kind of contract with you. The photographs you have provided show no signage and no indication as to where the vehicle was parked on the premises. You have no evidence of the identity or conduct of the driver. I invite you to look at the absolute lack of visibility in your own photographs. There are no signs or information visible at all. It was clearly very dark and there is no evidence that the driver saw any signage. There is no evidence that the driver was in any way aware that the vehicle was entering a restricted parking area nor that you had any authority there to enter into any contract with a driver. This means that there is no evidence of knowledge on the part of the driver and no evidence of any contractual relationship between the driver and Met Parking. In addition there is no evidence that you are the landowner or landlord or tenant of the land nor that you have any legal standing or right to impose a charge of any kind in this specific location and postcode. You have not given any evidence as to how you come to be a creditor in this location and I must appeal against any suggestion that you have authority or standing to impose a charge in your name without clear supporting evidence including the signature of the landord or tenant of the land authorising you to operate in this precise location at the BP garage and car wash in the postcode CM24 1PY. I submit that in all the circumstances there is no evidence that there was clear and ample signage which the driver was able to read in the darkness and there is no evidence that you own or control the land or that you were authorised by the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at the relevant time. I therefore appeal as the keeper  and invite you to accept my appeal. I do reserve the right to expand on and add to the points I have made here in the light of any arguments or evidence you put forward if you do not accept this appeal. I look forward to hearing from you. Kindly note that I have submitted two attachments, (1) a scanned copy of a boundary plan of Stansted Airport which includes the location of the BP garage and carwash at Southgate Road and (2) the Stansted Airport -London Byelaws 1996.

I can now see some typos in there, annoying, and I was nervous to divide it up for some reason so apologies that it is stream of consciousness there, lack of bullet points /paragraphs etc. terrible I know. I will be very appreciative of feedback, thank you very much for all your help up to now and I will report back once I have a response.

Coupon-mad

russiangoldfinch said:

How confusing when so much on this forum is about POPLA appeals ----- but then it seems that POPLA is toothless and /or not long for this world ? Perhaps a lot of information on here is out of date ?  I am keen to make an appeal and have studied the Newbies thread which had variously advised to complain to BP, then appeal to MET then to POPLA (Plans A B and C etc ) and having studied other parts of this forum if there are solid arguments I am very keen to put them forward but otherwise honestly I am not that litigious and would not have the time or money to take this to court. 

You would. It costs nothing and the template defence requires you to add very little: in most cases you add two words and one date. Literally job done!

Defending is ten times easier than POPLA and five times more likely to succeed! Emailed off. No risk, no CCJ, no costs.

In fact very little of this forum is about POPLA.

It's worth a try to see off some cases early.

russiangoldfinch

here is the text of the very rapid response I have received from MET :

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These include that parking is for customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum permitted stay in this area of 30 minutes. Your vehicle remained on site for longer than the maximum permitted stay therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it. Turning to the points you have raised: We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we issued the charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge. We are confident that there are sufficient signs, which are made using a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA1, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs, at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists. The signs are visible during the hours of darkness as they reflect light from the lamp posts they are fixed to, ambient light and light from vehicles themselves. It remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking. Please find attached images of the signage.

   The fact that our clients display our signs on their premises demonstrates that there is landowner authority, however, if the matter should proceed to court for collection and the court require a copy of formal landowner consent one will be provided to the court at that time. A contract is entered into when vehicles enter and remain in the location. This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options: 1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471. 2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: 3860075016 Please note that POPLA will consider the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above. 3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action. yours sincerely Appeals Department.

I will very much welcome your thoughts as to the strengths and weaknesses how I should set out my Appeal to POPLA

ChirpyChicken

just do a popla appeal about it being not relevant land , thats it nothing else, 
no need to constant posts about asking how it is , just about the above log it and move on;
doesnt need any more time spending on it(or others)