Mcdonalds Gatwick MET Parking services

Gr1pr

The end is missing 

j05hr

What should go at the end? I have looked through all the other threads and they all mention paragraph 7 of CoP. I can't find any threads after February this year with the newer CoP so not sure what else goes at the end

Coupon-mad

I've definitely seen a POPLA appeal last month, quoting the Joint Code instead of the old para 7 about landowner authority. Think it might be clause 14 or thereabouts in the Joint Code?

The way to find that thread is find the clause in the Joint Code then search the forum for it.

You say today is your last day to do POPLA... you realise that there are 33 days to use the Code, not just 28?

j05hr

Coupon-mad said:

I've definitely seen a POPLA appeal last month, quoting the Joint Code instead of the old para 7 about landowner authority. Think it might be clause 14 or thereabouts in the Joint Code?

The way to find that thread is find the clause in the Joint Code then search the forum for it.

You say today is your last day to do POPLA... you realise that there are 33 days to use the Code, not just 28?

This is the latest CoP? I can't see anything about the join

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

Thanks, I didn't realise there are 33 days to use the code. They said 28 days which I guess is another one of their tactics.

Castle

It's 14.1 of the Code.

j05hr

Castle said:

It's 14.1 of the Code.

Thanks so much!

j05hr

How is this?

Dear POPLA,
 
As the hirer of the vehicle. I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Met Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.
 
You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Highview’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.
 

As the hirer I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
 
1.The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2f, and is therefore not POFA compliant.
 
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.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
 
4.Unclear signage
 
5.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) 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 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) 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 hirer 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.’

 
4) 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.
 
 
5) 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.
 
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).
 
14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowners), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowners) covering:
the identity of the landowners)

a boundary map of the land to be managed;
such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowners) and the duration of that permission
the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
the parking operator's approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.

Many thanks,

Coupon-mad

I did say it was clause 14 in my reply!

I also said then search the forum for some words from it. It looks like you didn't? Because you don't seem to have copied the one I mentioned.

j05hr

Coupon-mad said:

I did say it was clause 14 in my reply!

I also said then search the forum for some words from it. It looks like you didn't? Because you don't seem to have copied the one I mentioned.

You did say clause 14. You have been very helpful throughout so you get a BIG thanks at the end.

I did find this thread that you helped with on that one as well. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81566209#Comment_81566209?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=Relationship+with+landowner

I'm not sure how much is relevant to me because I'm dealing with a airport private land which I thought is different to just a regular private parking so I'm not sure what I need to take and what I don't need

Coupon-mad

Yes that's it. I was remembering (wrongly) that they might have written a sentence or two to explain where the clause 14 quotes were from. But they didn't!

Nor did you and that's all that's missing.

You haven't explained what you are quoting!