IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
MET - Charged for parking in own space in office car park
tdtm500
Posts: 10 Forumite
Hi Everyone,
So I got a Parking Charge about 6 weeks ago for not displaying a valid permit in my office car park at work. I have a permit and it was on my dashboard but it was obscured by a couple of parking receipts for my gym when the charge was issued.
I appealed to MET immediately on the basis that it is MY space, so nobody is losing out by me parking there and made the mistake of identifying myself as the driver rather than the registered keeper (I know!). Naturally my appeal was rejected and a POPLA code was given.
I've appealed to POPLA on the basis of a few of the points in the newbies thread (landowner authority, unclear signage etc.) and MET have replied with pretty robust response to my appeal.
I now have 5 more days to provide comments on METs response. Does anyone have any advice?
Here's the summary of METs response to my appeal
In his appeal to POPLA Mr tdtm500 states:
1. The signs in the car park are unclear
We are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs displayed in the car park and that the terms and conditions of parking are clear and legible, including the value of the charge notice. Please see sections E of our evidence pack where we include images of the signs displayed in the car park and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
2. No evidence of Landowner of Authority
We would like to refer the assessor to the end of Section E of our evidence pack where we include a letter of authority from the landowner and redacted version of our contract with the landowner, demonstrating that we have been contracted to manage the car park and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
3. The charge is unconscionable
As the assessor is aware, the Supreme Court has ruled that charge notices of this nature and amount are not excessive and are enforceable.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times. Mr tdtm500 attached a photograph purporting to show his permit was clearly displayed when the charge notice was issued however as demonstrated by the photographic evidence in Section E of our evidence pack, when the charge notice was issued there was no valid permit clearly displayed face up in the front windscreen of Mr tdtm500’s vehicle. Therefore we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.
So I got a Parking Charge about 6 weeks ago for not displaying a valid permit in my office car park at work. I have a permit and it was on my dashboard but it was obscured by a couple of parking receipts for my gym when the charge was issued.
I appealed to MET immediately on the basis that it is MY space, so nobody is losing out by me parking there and made the mistake of identifying myself as the driver rather than the registered keeper (I know!). Naturally my appeal was rejected and a POPLA code was given.
I've appealed to POPLA on the basis of a few of the points in the newbies thread (landowner authority, unclear signage etc.) and MET have replied with pretty robust response to my appeal.
I now have 5 more days to provide comments on METs response. Does anyone have any advice?
Here's the summary of METs response to my appeal
In his appeal to POPLA Mr tdtm500 states:
1. The signs in the car park are unclear
We are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs displayed in the car park and that the terms and conditions of parking are clear and legible, including the value of the charge notice. Please see sections E of our evidence pack where we include images of the signs displayed in the car park and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
2. No evidence of Landowner of Authority
We would like to refer the assessor to the end of Section E of our evidence pack where we include a letter of authority from the landowner and redacted version of our contract with the landowner, demonstrating that we have been contracted to manage the car park and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
3. The charge is unconscionable
As the assessor is aware, the Supreme Court has ruled that charge notices of this nature and amount are not excessive and are enforceable.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times. Mr tdtm500 attached a photograph purporting to show his permit was clearly displayed when the charge notice was issued however as demonstrated by the photographic evidence in Section E of our evidence pack, when the charge notice was issued there was no valid permit clearly displayed face up in the front windscreen of Mr tdtm500’s vehicle. Therefore we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.
0
Comments
-
Also, I haven't received a NTK. Does one need to be sent if I've identified myself as the driver?0
-
why do you need a permit to park in what would appear to be a space you have prior rights to park in?From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
What did your employer say when you told them to get it cancelled?
They don't need to send a NTK you have identified the driver!0 -
It's next to a popular shopping area, so permits are assigned to employees in the car park. Each permit has an individual number on it which is allocated to a space on our companies systems.
I haven't contacted the head of my office yet, mostly because I wanted to try and argue my way out of it. The decision is with POPLA now, so I'm not sure if MET would be able to withdraw their appeal if the owner of the car park asked them to.0 -
the location is irrelevant if the lease/rent etc confers a prior right to park, then a third party can not take that away.
what did you put on the popla challenge?From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
It's next to a popular shopping area, so permits are assigned to employees in the car park. Each permit has an individual number on it which is allocated to a space on our companies systems.
I haven't contacted the head of my office yet, mostly because I wanted to try and argue my way out of it. The decision is with POPLA now, so I'm not sure if MET would be able to withdraw their appeal if the owner of the car park asked them to.
Well you've missed a trick there then! POPLA are not an authority the landowner can get this cancelled now if they want.
Have you started pulling apart their evidence yet?
Are the signs that visible etc etc?0 -
I copied some of the points in the newbies thread.
The points I included were:
- Signage unclear
- No evidence of landowner authority (they have since provided a contract)
- Charge is unconscionable (parking eye vs Beavis case)
in my original appeal to MET (which was rejected), my appeal grounds were that I have a permit and am entitled to park in the spot (showing photographic evidence of permit in my car on the day that the charge was given). In my naivety, I expected the charge to be upheld at this point, and once rejected I didn't bring it up with POPLA.
My reason for not bringing it up was that it might be seen as an admission of guilt, acknowledging that I have a permit but that it wasn't visible when the parking guy came round.
Do you think I should bring it up in the response?
MET have provided photos of the various signs and a signed copy of the contact (fees and T&Cs redacted) in their evidence.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards