Mcdonalds Gatwick MET Parking services

j05hr

So something like this?

Under Clause 14.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the operator is required to provide clear and accurate information about parking restrictions and is prohibited from implying they have statutory enforcement powers, which was not the case here. (Source: BPA Code of Practice, Section 14.1)

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.

Coupon-mad

Yep that's what was missing!

j05hr

Good to go now?

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).

Under Clause 14.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the operator is required to provide clear and accurate information about parking restrictions and is prohibited from implying they have statutory enforcement powers, which was not the case here. (Source: BPA Code of Practice, Section 14.1)
 
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,

j05hr

Bump - sorry not sure if that's allowed but not sure it will get seen if it goes down the pages.

Coupon-mad

I'd say remove this:

"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."

And if you are the hirer, you've missed a trick by not expanding properly on that and citing the omission of the enclosures that MET missed out of the envelope containing just the NTH.

Copy the words from any NTH para 13 POPLA appeal by searching the forum for that.

j05hr

I have removed that paragraph and added para 13. Do I also need para 14 with it as para 14 refers to para 13?

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. 

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).

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for the creditor (Met Parking) to have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the hirer of the vehicle (myself), certain conditions must be met as stated in schedule 4, paragraph 13. 

My belief that Met Parking have failed to fulfil the conditions of paragraph 13; which states that Met Parking must have provided myself as the hirer with a notice in accordance with paragraph 13.

Paragraph 13 states:

 

“(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

 

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

 

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

 

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

 

(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—

 

(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;

 

(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;

 

(and it is immaterial whether the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) relates also to other charges or penalties of any kind).” 

 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).

Under Clause 14.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the operator is required to provide clear and accurate information about parking restrictions and is prohibited from implying they have statutory enforcement powers, which was not the case here. (Source: BPA Code of Practice, Section 14.1)
 
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

The heading and appeal point as to why the notice fails POFA is talking about the wrong paragraph. That is where your point quoting para 13 of POFA goes. Remove the stuff about para 9 which doesn't relate to hirers.

You also need to say no enclosures were with the NTH.

j05hr

Has this corrected the issues?

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.

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

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

The operator has not shown that the individual being pursued is the driver

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).

There is no presumption in law that the hirer or keeper of a vehicle is the driver. A parking operator must either show evidence of who was driving, or follow the procedures set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to hold the keeper/hirer liable. MET Parking has not identified the driver.

The PCN fails to comply with POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 – No Hirer Liability

As the hirer, I am only liable under POFA if the operator meets the strict conditions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 13. I believe Met Parking has failed to meet these conditions.

To transfer liability to a vehicle hirer, POFA requires the operator to provide the hirer with:

“(2) The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

(3) The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—

(a) contain a statement by the hirer acknowledging responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to them;

(b) include an address for service for the hirer.”

No such documents were enclosed with the Notice to Hirer (NTH). I did not receive a copy of the hire agreement, a statement from the hire company, or a signed statement of liability from myself as the hirer.

This is a clear failure to comply with POFA 2012, and therefore MET Parking cannot hold me liable for this charge as the hirer.

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).

Under Clause 14.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the operator is required to provide clear and accurate information about parking restrictions and is prohibited from implying they have statutory enforcement powers, which was not the case here. (Source: BPA Code of Practice, Section 14.1)

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

No.

You seem to have completely removed point 1 instead of changing it.

I explained needs to refer to the POFA para 13, yet you still have a point 1 heading ...which still refers to the wrong part of POFA:

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.

j05hr

So replace this

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.

with this

1. The Notice to Hirer does not comply with POFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 – no hirer liability can apply.

Do I need to get rid of this as well as it's all referring to Paragraph 9 NTK

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.

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. 

As the hirer I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
 
1. The Notice to Hirer does not comply with POFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 – no hirer liability can apply.
 
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).

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for the creditor (Met Parking) to have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the hirer of the vehicle (myself), certain conditions must be met as stated in schedule 4, paragraph 13. 

My belief that Met Parking have failed to fulfil the conditions of paragraph 13; which states that Met Parking must have provided myself as the hirer with a notice in accordance with paragraph 13.

Paragraph 13 states:

 

“(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

 

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

 

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

 

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

 

(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—

 

(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;

 

(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;

 

(and it is immaterial whether the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) relates also to other charges or penalties of any kind).” 

No such documents were enclosed with the Notice to Hirer (NTH). I did not receive a copy of the hire agreement, a statement from the hire company, or a signed statement of liability from myself as the hirer.

This is a clear failure to comply with POFA 2012, and therefore MET Parking cannot hold me liable for this charge as the hirer.

 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).

Under Clause 14.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the operator is required to provide clear and accurate information about parking restrictions and is prohibited from implying they have statutory enforcement powers, which was not the case here. (Source: BPA Code of Practice, Section 14.1)
 
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,