Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 2:35 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 13Thanks
    mick miller
    MET PCN Advice required
    • #1
    • 8th Mar 18, 2:35 PM
    MET PCN Advice required 8th Mar 18 at 2:35 PM
    I may have already made some fatal errors in my appeals process as this wasn't my first port of call. However, as clearly some of you are rather expert in these matters I'm hoping I can claw this back and avoid a charge.

    I'm not too sure how much detail I should add so specific location won't be given. This is the current course of events.

    In January I parked outside a Starbucks on a retail park run by Euro Garages. The intention was to use the toilet and grab a coffee. The place was packed so I elected to walk to the McDonald's next door and use the toilet there. On leaving I looked in again at the Starbucks and it was still busy so I got back into the car and left. Total stay less than 15 minutes. Time in McDonald's 4 minutes.

    In February I received the PCN from MET stating a 60 fine rising to 100 after 14 days.

    I used the online appeals process to enquire what the charge related to. I think my single sentence appeal stated "I'm not sure what the contravention here is?". I'm fairly sure I filled in the details as registered keeper.

    The appeal was rejected on the grounds that "The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the car park is for the use of XXX customers while they are on the premises only, that McDonald's is not on XXX and that there is no free parking for McDonald's. Your vehicle was recorded parked at this location while you left the site walking in the direction of McDonald!!!8217;s therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it."

    I since contacted Starbucks customer services via email and complained, they stated that they also believed the charge was incorrectly applied and that they would contact the provider, Euro Garages, to have the charge cancelled - they get this happening a lot.

    I've since tried to contact Euro Garages with a copy of the email sent to Starbucks customer services to chase up the cancellation but thus far haven't had a reply. The charge still shows as active on the MET parking site.

    I have received a POPLA code but wondered what my next approach should be as there seems to be little movement in having the charge quashed.

    My message to Euro Garages and Starbucks did include the defence of 'inappropriate charge applied' and 'not commensurate with the loss to business', which I now know as being useless having read some of the threads. Have I boxed myself into a corner here? Should I just cough up and be done? Any advice appreciated.

    I forgot to add: the photos they submitted clearly show me walking toward McDonalds and returning 3 minutes later, both times empty handed.
    Last edited by mick miller; 08-03-2018 at 2:46 PM.
Page 1
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 4:11 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 18, 4:11 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 18, 4:11 PM
    Just had an email from euro garages which states:

    "Hi xxx,We are extremely sorry you have received a parking fine. However the parking terms are enforced by the land owner, and not us,
    therefore we cannot help you. There are plenty of signs dotted around the car park stating you cannot leave the site. If you feel this is unjustified
    then you can appeal the fine with MET parking."


    So, it looks like the complaint to the forecourt management and retailer approach has failed then!
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 4:56 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 18, 4:56 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 18, 4:56 PM
    Final nugget of info. The alleged contravention took place on the 13th January, but the NTRK only arrived on the 12th February, could this be simply null and void because it has not been issued within 14 days?

    "ANPR letters should be received by the Registered Keeper within 14 days. If they haven't then the Keeper cannot be held liable for the actions of a driver. If you were not the driver then you can write to the Parking company to tell them that as the company had not met the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Keeper has no liability and they should take it up with the driver - who you need not name."

    So, assuming I need to take this up with POPLA I wonder whether the following would be sufficient.

    "As the Registered Keeper of this vehicle I am appealing this parking charge notice on the grounds that ANPR letters should be received by the Registered Keeper within 14 days.

    As the alleged contravention took place on the 13th January 2018 and the notice not issued until the 12th February 2018 the Keeper cannot be held liable for the actions of a driver.

    As MET Parking has not met the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Keeper is not liable in this instance. MET Parking will need to pursue the driver of the vehicle on this occasion. As the registered keeper I am not obliged to name the driver on this occasion."
    Last edited by mick miller; 08-03-2018 at 5:10 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 18, 5:35 PM
    • 58,564 Posts
    • 72,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:35 PM
    • #4
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:35 PM
    Yes it's too late, if :

    - this is your car and you are the registered keeper, not a lease/hire/company car

    or if:

    - this was a postal PCN with ANPR photos of the car driving in and out - or other photos of the car on it.

    However:

    The document was not late if this NTK talks about a windscreen PCN on the day that 'remains unpaid'.

    I used the online appeals process to enquire what the charge related to. I think my single sentence appeal stated "I'm not sure what the contravention here is?". I'm fairly sure I filled in the details as registered keeper.
    That's good news if you are sure (if this was an ANPR camera postal PCN and you are the rk on the V5).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 5:40 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    • #5
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:40 PM
    • #5
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:40 PM
    Have a thank on me. I did send a copy of my complaint to MET stating more details (as outlined in the first post), but as you are only allowed a single appeal I never received a reply - I guess an automated process, you have one appeal and that's it.

    It IS my car. This WAS a postal PCN with photo evidence. There WAS/IS no wondscreen PCN. So, would the appeal to POPLA below suffice? Should I add anything?

    As the Registered Keeper of this vehicle I am appealing this parking charge notice on the grounds that ANPR letters should be received by the Registered Keeper within 14 days.

    As the alleged contravention took place on the 13th January 2018 and the notice not issued until the 12th February 2018 the Keeper cannot be held liable for the actions of a driver.

    As MET Parking has not met the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Keeper is not liable in this instance. MET Parking will need to pursue the driver of the vehicle on this occasion. As the registered keeper I am not obliged to name the driver.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Mar 18, 5:47 PM
    • 7,728 Posts
    • 7,480 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #6
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:47 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:47 PM
    To see what a PoPLA appeal should look like, see this thread:

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5792489

    Have you yet discovered the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?
    In particular, post #3 of that thread gives comprehensive guidance on constructing a PoPLA appeal.
    Last edited by KeithP; 08-03-2018 at 5:49 PM.
    .
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 5:51 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    • #7
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:51 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:51 PM
    I find that thread monumentally confusing I'm afraid.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Mar 18, 5:52 PM
    • 7,728 Posts
    • 7,480 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:52 PM
    • #8
    • 8th Mar 18, 5:52 PM
    I find that thread monumentally confusing I'm afraid.
    Originally posted by mick miller
    Which thread? I mentioned two.

    The link I supplied gives you an already written PoPLA appeal text for MET.
    What could be easier?
    .
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 6:13 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    • #9
    • 8th Mar 18, 6:13 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Mar 18, 6:13 PM
    So would this be better?
    POPLA Ref xxx
    MET Parking Services PCN no xxx

    A notice to keeper was issued on 12th February 2018 and received by me, the registered keeper of XXXXXX for the alleged contravention of 'Breach of terms and conditions' at Southgate Park, Stansted. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

    1) As the Registered Keeper of this vehicle I am appealing this parking charge notice on the grounds that ANPR letters should be received by the Registered Keeper within 14 days.
    2) MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
    3) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    5) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.


    1). As the Registered Keeper of this vehicle I am appealing this parking charge notice on the grounds that ANPR letters should be received by the Registered Keeper within 14 days.

    As the alleged contravention took place on the 13th January 2018 and the notice not issued until the 12th February 2018 the Keeper cannot be held liable for the actions of a driver.

    As MET Parking has not met the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Keeper is not liable in this instance. MET Parking will need to pursue the driver of the vehicle on this occasion. As the registered keeper I am not obliged to name the driver.

    2) MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)

    MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA and make no mention of such or the transfer of liability to the keeper under POFA 2012 in the Notice to Keeper I have received.

    In cases with a keeper Registered Keeper, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the Registered Keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4 which they have not in this case. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper Registered Keeper to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability

    ";There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ';reasonable presumption'; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which in this case the operator is not.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the Registered Keeper is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the Registered Keeper is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the Registered Keeper. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

    3) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    If MET Parking Services did wish to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, which they have not, the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012; paragraph 8 states specifically ";The notice must!!!8211;;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"; The notice to keeper that I have received does not state the period of parking to which the notice relates, only the time the PCN was issued.

    Due to the omission of this detail the notice to keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 paragraph 6 of POFA 2012 and means that myself, the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver

    4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    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. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    5) Further, Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    xxx://xxx.appealnow.com/parking-ticket/clamping-case-Vine-v-Waltham-Forest/

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 18, 6:23 PM
    • 58,564 Posts
    • 72,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep, that'll do!

    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 6:30 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    Fingers crossed then!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Mar 18, 6:32 PM
    • 7,728 Posts
    • 7,480 Thanks
    KeithP
    Easy wasn't it?

    But you said 'monumentally confusing'.
    .
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 8th Mar 18, 6:39 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    No, really, the terms and options are so varied it is, initially, overwhelming to someone encountering this parking charge 'scam' in the first instance.

    However, thanks to the help of you and others like you I have been steered toward a pertinent case from which I could put a POPLA appeal letter together. For that you all have my thanks.
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 27th Mar 18, 12:39 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    So, a quick update on this one. It appears that despite nominating 'keeper' on the original appeal the I used the words 'I left the vehicle to use the restroom facilities'... therefore MET Cowboys have countered with...


    In his appeal to POPLA Mr bloggs raises several grounds of appeal: 1. The Notice to Keeper was not received within 14 days. As stated in Section C of our evidence pack, Mr bloggs has acknowledged that he is the driver and therefore we are pursuing him as the driver. Therefore we are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) in order to pursue him as the registered keeper, and so the requirements of PoFA 2012 do not apply, meaning there was no requirement for us to serve the notice within 14 days. Please find Mr bloggs!!!8217;s original appeal to us in Section D of our evidence pack, where he acknowledges being the driver. 2. We have deliberately chosen not to use PoFA 2012 and have not shown that the individual we are pursuing is the driver. As stated above, we are not relying on PoFA 2012 because Mr bloggs has acknowledged he was the driver in his original appeal. Therefore we are pursuing him as the driver. 3. Non-compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. As stated above, we are not relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 as Mr bloggs has acknowledged he was the driver and we are pursuing him as the driver. Therefore the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 are not applicable here. 4. No evidence of landowner authority. We have included evidence of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack, which demonstrates the area Southgate Park encompasses. We have also highlighted relevant paragraphs from the contract which demonstrate our authority to enforce parking restrictions at this location. 5. The signs in the car park are inadequate. We are confident that the signage in place is this car park is prominently displayed and clearly states the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. We have also included images of the signs taken at night in order to demonstrate that the signs remain visible in the hours of darkness. It remains the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 19 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include: 60 minutes free stay only and no free stay for McDonald!!!8217;s; parking is for Southgate Park Stansted customers only, do not leave the premises at any time when your vehicle is parked in the car park; no free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is not on Southgate Park; if you wish to park here for McDonald!!!8217;s you must pay for parking from when you enter the car park. The signs clearly state in 3 separate conditions that there is no free parking for McDonald!!!8217;s. McDonald!!!8217;s is situated adjacent to the Southgate Park site and has its own car park. As the photographic evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, Mr bloggs was recorded leaving the premises whilst his vehicle remained parked in the car park. Therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.
    They have photos of someone trying the handle of my car, that same random joe walking toward McDonalds and returning later.

    Am I now over a barrel? I wish I had read this forum before responding to them in a panic! Any advice appreciated.
    Last edited by mick miller; 27-03-2018 at 6:31 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Mar 18, 9:53 PM
    • 58,564 Posts
    • 72,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Read this one:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74079117#post74079117

    And make sure in your comments, you say similar things to that one. Include the concerns about data.

    The fact that the keeper said in appeal that they used the rest room, simply places the keeper as an occupant of the car at best, not evidenced to have been the driver who parked on arrival, who may well have been in the other on site shop the entire time.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 2nd Apr 18, 8:35 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    My comments
    My comments (limited to 200 characters.


    The PCN has been issued for allegedly 'leaving the site'. I take this to mean that the driver has left the site and as such, has potentially breached some clearly set out terms and conditions. This being so, I would have expected the operator to provide me (the registered keeper) with proof that the individual that !!!8216;left the site!!!8217; is the driver and registered keeper.

    The photos provided neither show that the person at the door of the vehicle or on the footpath are in fact me, the registered keeper. Nor do they show that there are no other occupants of the vehicle or that those occupants made use of the Southgate Park facilities whilst parked at Southgate Park.

    MET parking have asserted that they are pursuing me as the driver and are not relying on PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 as I !!!8220;acknowledged he was the driver in his original appeal!!!8221;. I made no such statement.

    In my original appeal I stated two things only. Firstly, that I was the registered keeper. Secondly that I was !!!8220;not sure how this constitutes a contravention? The vehicle was parked in a marked bay for the restaurant services at Stansted. I left the vehicle to use the restroom facilities, returned shortly thereafter!!!8230;!!!8221;

    I did not confirm that I was the driver as MET parking contest, simply that the vehicle was parked in a marked bay, and that I left the vehicle to use the restroom facilities. This statement, at best, places me as an occupant of the vehicle and not the driver as MET parking alledge. Therefore I am confident that the first two points of my appeal still stand.

    It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut my claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly and they have failed to do so, therefore POPLA will not be able to find on the evidence that any contravention occurred, nor that the driver has been evidenced. The PCN has not been properly given.

    These photographs also appear to overstep the mark in terms of data protection.
    Last edited by mick miller; 02-04-2018 at 9:30 PM. Reason: none
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Apr 18, 11:39 PM
    • 58,564 Posts
    • 72,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    alledge.
    ''allege''

    I am not sure about your wording, it sounds like you are trying to hide something and the comments should be shorter IMHO. It's this bit that sounds dodgy, because if the image was not you, then 'you' (an honest appellant) would say so!

    The photos provided neither show that the person at the door of the vehicle or on the footpath are in fact me, the registered keeper.
    I think it's the word ''me'' that I don't like.

    It's also a huge shame that you wrote 'I was using the rest room' and you might lose this (just saying). If so, do NOT pay the thing, of course. No-one here does.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 3rd Apr 18, 11:59 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    Good points, apologies for the spelling, although alledge is still correct, if now obsolete! Maybe I'm, reincarnated? I agree, a bit wordy for comments and perhaps I should have stated that the images are too blurry for me to discern who is beside the vehicle.

    I also agree that it is likely I will lose. My initial appeal to MET should not have been composed after visiting this forum and seeking advice, unfortunately I only looked further after receiving the reply from MET following my first response.

    The advice to NOT pay the thing, is that really sound advice? Surely this will be followed up with further demands to pay, small claims court etc.?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 3rd Apr 18, 12:02 PM
    • 35,917 Posts
    • 20,195 Thanks
    Quentin
    You only have to pay if they take Court action and win!
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 3rd Apr 18, 12:04 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mick miller
    Wouldn't that substantially raise the fee demanded though? I remember seeing somewhere though that MET hadn't actually taken any court action. So just ignore the demand letters should I lose my appeal?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

70Posts Today

2,601Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin