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
    • freedomreigns
    • By freedomreigns 26th Mar 18, 8:52 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 5Thanks
    freedomreigns
    MET Parking Services Stansted. POPLA stage help!
    • #1
    • 26th Mar 18, 8:52 PM
    MET Parking Services Stansted. POPLA stage help! 26th Mar 18 at 8:52 PM
    Hi all,

    I got a NTK from Southgate Car Park (Stansted Airport) and appealed as the keeper (not the driver) as recommended using the blurb in blue in the newbies section.

    The reason for the ticket was 'Left the Premises'

    I have now received the following response below (along with photographic evidence of a random person walking from the car towards McDonald's and back again).

    What do I do next? I have done some forum searches and there's so many cases with slightly differing details so I thought I'd try and get some guidance for my specific case.

    Much thanks in advance

    THEIR RESPONSE:

    Dear Mr Bloggs,

    Re: Parking Charge Notice Number ABXXXXXXX (Vehicle: XX08XYZ)
    Site: (346) Southgate Park Issue date: 19/03/2018

    POPLA Verification Code 1234567890

    Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to Parking Charge Notice ABXXXXXXX. After careful consideration we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

    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 Southgate Park customers while they are on the premises only, that McDonald's is not on Southgate Park and that there is no free parking for McDonald's. Your vehicle was recorded parked at this location while the occupants were pictured leaving the site walking in the direction of McDonald's therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.

    Turning to the points you raised:
    1. Yes
    2. Attached
    3. These may be viewed on appealmetparkingcom
    4. With regard to S 10 notice, the driver gave permission for us to request the registered keeper details and we believe we have the right to pursue the charge notice revenue that is due to us.

    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 now 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 Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days of today!!!8217;s date. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will revert to £100.

    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: popla.co.uk using verification code: 1234567890 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!!!8217;s decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services 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.
    Yours sincerely
    Last edited by freedomreigns; 27-03-2018 at 10:29 AM.
Page 2
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 30th Mar 18, 7:04 PM
    • 9,968 Posts
    • 9,765 Thanks
    The Deep
    Strong enough, you should win this one in your sleep.

    Leaving site is an almost impossible breach of contract to get past a judge. It may be an unlawful restriction on one's human rights, it is probably an unfair term in a consumer contract.

    AFAIA, after the unfortunate Miss Coates neaely went to prison, no PPC has chanced their arm with this since.

    Do not forget to complain to your Hon Member.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 30th Mar 18, 8:20 PM
    • 18,902 Posts
    • 29,775 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Where's appeal point #2 in the latest draft. It was there in the earlier one - post #18 at 10:02 this morning - but now seems to have evaporated.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • freedomreigns
    • By freedomreigns 1st Apr 18, 12:53 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    freedomreigns
    Draft 4
    Much thanks Umkomaas!

    Here is the full appeal with my 5 points. If I get two seals of approval then I'll shoot it off asap. Once again a big thank you to all, your help is very much appreciated!


    APPEAL

    1 - The notice to keeper arrived more than 14 days after the Date of contravention therefore according to Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 there is no keeper liability:

    The date of contravention on the PCN is 23 February 2018. The date of notice issue is 19th March 2018, thus the keeper is not liable.

    Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
    9
    (1)
    A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
    (2)
    The notice must—
    (a)
    specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
    (b)
    inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
    (c)
    describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
    (d)
    specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
    (i)
    specified in the notice; and
    (ii)
    no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
    (e)
    state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
    (i)
    to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
    (ii)
    if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
    (f)
    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;
    (g)
    inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
    (h)
    identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
    (i)
    specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
    (3)
    The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
    (4)
    The notice must be given by—
    (a)
    handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b)
    sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
    (5)
    The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
    (6)
    A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
    (7)
    When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
    (8)
    In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
    (a)
    any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
    (b)
    any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.


    [B]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[B]

    In cases with a keeper appellant, 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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant 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. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    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 appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant 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 appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


    3 - No evidence that a random person walking into McDonalds:

    (a) left the site
    or
    (b) was the person who parked the car


    The PCN has been issued for allegedly 'leaving the site'. In this case I would 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 driver did indeed leave the site. On reviewing the evidence, I can see that it has provided some blurry photographs allegedly taken by the operative on site that shows two unidentified individuals walking to and from McDonalds.

    The fact that these photographs appear to overstep the mark of data protection - intruding on personal privacy of McDonalds patrons without their authorisation - is another matter that POPLA may wish to raise with the BPA and the Information Commissioner, given the impending GDPR legislation.

    Given some parking operators' modus operandi of handing anyone on site (landowners, local busybodies, shop workers, office workers) a camera and telling them they will pay a bounty for 'PCNs' issued, it cannot be assumed that the person who took the images is even a parking firm employee. Even if they are, this is still a random person with no DBS check clearance, taking photos not of cars and PCNs (as per their limited licence by the landowner) but of people and families going about their daily life. MET are then processing these people's personal images and sending those photos in the post, unsolicited, to a registered keeper of a car who may or may not know the persons in the photographs, who may be nothing to do with that vehicle at all.

    In any case, the photos do not evidence that the person was seen parking the vehicle in question, only that two unidentified persons were apparently photographed going towards McDonalds, then getting into the car afterwards, but that does NOT evidence who was in the driving seat when the car arrived and was parked. This cannot be assumed and could have been a third person who in fact was in the other shop on site all along, not off site like the supposed passengers.

    If the DPA and GDPR allows them to even do this (again, I do not accept that it does and do not believe that any signs warn people that they - not just their vehicles - might be photographed) I would have expected the operator to provide me, the registered keeper, with evidence of who the driver actually was and where they went. This shows me no such thing. There is also no evidence that the supposed boundaries are shown on any signs or on a prominent map that drivers can see while on site, in order for them to make a reasonable decision as to what then might be considered 'off site'.

    Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site' this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park. Even if shown walking to what looks like an exit, a driver could be simply going to read the entrance sign, as any circumspect motorist knowing how predatory parking firms are, would do in order to protect themselves from the sort of 'outrageous scam' exposed by MPs in Parliament in February when they discussed the wholly out of control 'rogue' parking industry.

    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.


    4 - 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

    I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

    ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    ://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    ://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    :// -archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    :// .signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    :// .ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    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:

    :// .bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    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.


    5 - 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

    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 authorised on the material date, 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).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

    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
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Apr 18, 1:10 PM
    • 18,845 Posts
    • 23,841 Thanks
    Redx
    looks ok to me on a skim read, BUT I would put a bullet point menu just before the main appeal, replicating each sub header , so the assessor can easily see the 5 points of appeal before they start reading it

    once approved , save to pdf and appeal as OTHER on their website and attach the pdf and submit it
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • freedomreigns
    • By freedomreigns 1st Apr 18, 2:16 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    freedomreigns
    Good point Redx! (No pun intended )
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 1st Apr 18, 2:53 PM
    • 18,902 Posts
    • 29,775 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I thought for a moment that point #2 was still missing - but, your emboldening of its heading hasn't come through. Just make sure your final draft has it emboldened.

    Looks ok now to me.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • freedomreigns
    • By freedomreigns 1st Apr 18, 3:06 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    freedomreigns
    Ah yes of course! Thank you!

    Ok off I go to POPLA!
    • Cavalyman
    • By Cavalyman 9th Apr 18, 4:40 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Cavalyman
    Using all the info from this forum I have just won an appeal against Met Parking for the same offence. The appeal was submitted and they didnt want to contest it so I dont have to pay the charge

    To all the legal people on here who post the templates and advice, many thanks.

    If anyone wants me to cut and paste my appeal on here please let me know and I will.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 4:45 PM
    • 60,111 Posts
    • 73,243 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am no 'legal person' (but Johnersh and LoadsofChildren123 are solicitors).

    We regulars are mainly not legally qualified, but we just do this to kill a scam as best we can, and because we understand parking law better than many others.
    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.

    • Cavalyman
    • By Cavalyman 10th Apr 18, 2:20 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Cavalyman
    Well its very much appreciated. Thank You.

    Below is the appeal I submitted - Im sure it will be useful to someone else who uses these facilities at Stansted Airport.

    POPLA Ref 386*******
    MET Parking Services PCN no AB2****24

    A notice to keeper was issued on 14 March 2018 and received by me, the registered keeper of *********** for the alleged contravention of ‘Breach of terms and conditions’’ at Southgate Park, Stanstead. 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) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    2) The operator 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) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    4) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
    5) Amount demanded is a penalty
    6) The PCN was not issued in the authorised time period (14 Days) and there was no Windscreen ticket issued in accordance with the conditions as per POFA – See Attachment 2

    1) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012:
    If MET Parking Services wish to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012; paragraph 8 states specifically “The notice must—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.

    See Attachment 1 and 2

    2) The operator 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)

    In cases with a keeper appellant, 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 appellant 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. 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 appellant 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.

    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 appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant 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 appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.
    3) 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

    4) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention;

    The evidence provided by MET Parking Services for the alleged “breach of terms and conditions” stated as “Left the Premises” does not show the location of the driver in any way or for any period of time and therefore cannot be used as evidence as such. It is an assumption that the driver or parties from the vehicle “left the premises” because of the direction they were walking in – it does not show them walking back to the facilities in said premises after a few minutes. The photo of the car in question and the consequent photos does not account for all the location of the driver and parties from the vehicle.

    5) Amount demanded is a penalty Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis.
    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    ATTACHMENT 1 - POINT 6

    ATTACHMENT 2

    ATTACHMENT 3

    For ANPR Tickets the following are the Conditions that must all be met for Keeper Liability to Apply:
    1. The ticket was issued to a car in a car park in England or Wales (note that keeper liability does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland in any circumstances).
    2. The car park was on “relevant land”. Relevant land is defined as private land and specifically excludes the following land:
    (a) a public highway
    (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority
    (c ) any other land where parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control (such as airports and railway stations which are covered by byelaws).
    3. There is some alleged liability of the driver to the Operator in respect to unpaid parking charges.
    4. The vehicle was not stolen on the date of the parking event
    5. The maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper under keeper liability is the amount specified on the notice to keeper
    6. The creditor does not know both the name and current address of the driver.
    7. A notice to keeper must be served not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked
    8. A notice to keeper has been given that contains the following mandatory information:
    - Which car the ticket relates to
    - What land the car was parked on
    - The period the car was parked
    - Advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and the amount and that it has not been paid in full
    - State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when
    - Specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and of the dispute resolution arrangements
    - Invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if he was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver
    - Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge
    - Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.
    - Details of the discount for payment within 14 days,
    - Date of the notice
    • freedomreigns
    • By freedomreigns 17th Apr 18, 7:47 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    freedomreigns
    POPLA Appeal Successful!
    Many thanks to all those who helped and responded to this thread!

    POPLA sent me the following email today

    (Ironically I'm doing an airport run to Stansted tomorrow, can't make this stuff up lol! I will NOT be getting caught out this time )


    Dear 'Freedom Reigns',

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXX.

    MET Parking Services have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team
    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Apr 18, 7:52 PM
    • 18,845 Posts
    • 23,841 Thanks
    Redx
    same as apcoa, they dont like a long and detailed popla appeal so pull out rather than pay popla their fee

    all smoke and mirrors with some of these sc@mmers

    well done
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Joeb87
    • By Joeb87 15th Jun 18, 5:32 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Joeb87
    Help
    Did you appeal your pcn online? I have appealed mine and asked for a popla code but have had no confirmation of appeal. Instead just more letters of final demands. One also saying popla appeals no longer happen. Any advice
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Jun 18, 5:50 PM
    • 8,671 Posts
    • 8,584 Thanks
    KeithP
    Did you appeal your pcn online? I have appealed mine and asked for a popla code but have had no confirmation of appeal. Instead just more letters of final demands. One also saying popla appeals no longer happen. Any advice
    Originally posted by Joeb87
    Joeb87, why don't you start a new thread and tell us more about your incident?

    But before doing that you might want to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to give you an idea of the game you are caught up in.

    Please don't reply on this thread. Thanks.
    .
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

170Posts Today

1,859Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin