Mcdonalds Gatwick MET Parking services

j05hr

Coupon-mad said:

I don't understand.

You still keep repeating PoFA para 9. Bin that.

I think I already said this but just search the forum for something like NTH POPLA.

Copy the correct point as your point 1.

I think I got confused when I last time changed point 1 but changed the wrong thing. Now I understand I think!

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)  Notice to Hirer non-compliant with POFA 2012- The Operator (ECP) failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (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), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.
 
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,

 

Coupon-mad

The Operator (ECP)??

j05hr

I have changed it to Met and submitted hoping that was the only issue. I was worried about the code running out as it's now been quite a few days after the 28 days. Will let you know how I get on.

Le_Kirk

POPLA codes last for 33 days,

j05hr

Thank you so much everyone, especially Coupon-mad. Please do let me know if you have a Buy Me a Coffee page or something similar?

As it has been withdrawn, shall I still post in the Popla decision thread?

Dear Mr XXX

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

Gr1pr

Yes, please post a link to this thread in case other victims need help with their cases

Well done 

Met couldnt be bothered to try to counter your hirer appeal 

doubledotcom

Make a formal complaint to the DVLA as MET have issued a PoFA notice for an alleged contravention on non-relevant land in breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which is also a breach of the KADOE contract.

Coupon-mad

j05hr said:

Hi,

My friend received a parking ticket for briefly stopping in a disabled bay at McDonald’s Gatwick. He says that as soon as he realised it was a disabled space, he moved the car and was parked there for less than a minute.

he rents the vehicle as a PCO driver, so would it be best to follow the hirer/leasee appeal process outlined in the Newbies Thread?

Hi all,

I sent this, 

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 Met'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.
 
Given that Met has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

And received this back

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge. 

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed around the car park. These include that vehicles parked or waiting in marked disabled bays must clearly display a valid disabled badge face up in the front windscreen. When your vehicle was observed there was no valid disabled badge clearly displayed therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it. 

We note your comments however we are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions. 

We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act. 

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: 3861905094 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.

j05hr said:

Thank you so much everyone, especially Coupon-mad. Please do let me know if you have a Buy Me a Coffee page or something similar?

Dear Mr XXX

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

doubledotcom said:

Make a formal complaint to the DVLA as MET have issued a PoFA notice for an alleged contravention on non-relevant land in breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which is also a breach of the KADOE contract.

I agree.

And this could also be reported to the CMA as telling a keeper or hirer/lessee they are liable under the POFA when they cannot be, is a misleading action under the DMCC Act 2024. Traders can be fined (this is a civil offence).

j05hr

Only just seen all these replies, will go through it and definitely do it by tomorrow to make sure not to miss the deadline and then tackle CMA and DVLA

Coupon-mad

j05hr said:

Only just seen all these replies, will go through it and definitely do it by tomorrow to make sure not to miss the deadline and then tackle CMA and DVLA

Deadline for the Consultation was extended.

It is now Friday week. FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.