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
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 21st Aug 18, 12:08 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    MET parking charge appeal to POPLA
    • #1
    • 21st Aug 18, 12:08 PM
    MET parking charge appeal to POPLA 21st Aug 18 at 12:08 PM
    Hi, I have read through lots of threads including the newbies thread before posting this and would like to say what a great forum this is with mountains of good information and some very helpful posters.
    My appeal to MET Parking Services was rejected and their NTK is POFA 2012 compliant as it warns the keeper that if after 28 days the charge isn't paid and they don't know the name or address of the driver, then they have the right to recover the charge from me.

    I am hoping someone can give me an opinion on this POPLA appeal before I send it.


    POPLA Verification Code xxxxxxxxxx
    MET Parking Services ref: xxxxxxxx

    Dear Sir/Madam
    I am appealing the PCN from MET Parking Services as registered keeper of the vehicle.
    The charge is levied despite the driver of the vehicle not being identified.

    MET Parking Services sent me a PCN dated xx June 2018, requesting the name of the driver of vehicle (xxxx xxx) between xx:xx:xx – xx:xx:xx on xx/06/2018

    MET Parking Services allege that the driver of the vehicle "exceeded the stay authorised at [840] Aria Old Dairy, South Ruislip, HA4 OEY, remaining in the car park for 3xx minutes". However I have been informed that the car paid two separate visits to the car park between the times stated above and did not in fact exceed the Maximum Permitted Stay of 300 minutes as stated in their letter. Therefore the terms and conditions of using the car park were not contravened.
    I explained this in my appeal to MET Parking Services and they gave no response in respect to this, I can only assume that they did not read my appeal properly. They have provided no proof that the vehicle was parked for the duration of the time stated.
    As MET have obtained keeper details from the DVLA when no parking contravention had occurred, and had falsely insinuated a charge existed, they are misusing the personal data of the motorist and causing harassment and distress.

    Two photographs of the vehicle were provided by MET, however neither show it definitively in the location they allege.

    MET then go on to state that "the terms and conditions of the car park are clearly displayed on signs in prominent places around the parking area". I contest this as the picture of their sign, which they sent to me clearly shows that the full terms and conditions are printed in a text which is too small for the average person to read without standing in front of the sign at close proximity.

    (The picture of the sign which MET sent me should be here, but it hasn't posted)


    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

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    Many thanks
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 21st Aug 18, 12:18 PM
    • 3,426 Posts
    • 4,250 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 18, 12:18 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 18, 12:18 PM
    After 28 days of WHEN?
    Notice given?
    Notice issued?
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 22nd Aug 18, 9:05 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    • #3
    • 22nd Aug 18, 9:05 AM
    • #3
    • 22nd Aug 18, 9:05 AM
    Thanks for responding nosferatu1001.

    The wording used is ‘28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given’
    I received the NTK well inside the 14 days from the alleged breach of contract.

    Many thanks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd Aug 18, 10:54 AM
    • 37,391 Posts
    • 84,257 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #4
    • 22nd Aug 18, 10:54 AM
    • #4
    • 22nd Aug 18, 10:54 AM
    That is a very short PoPLA appeal. Whilst this is a classic case of a double dip, we would normally expect to see a lot more appeal points including the very long Inadequate signage point.

    I suggest you look at post 3 of the NEWBIES and construct your draft appeal using all the template points you will find there that are relevant.

    Choose from,

    The event did not occur, double dip.
    Not the landowner
    No standing to bring charges
    Not the person iable for the charge
    Inadequate signage
    ANPR inaccuracies and ICO breach.

    plus any other points that are relevant.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 22nd Aug 18, 11:45 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    • #5
    • 22nd Aug 18, 11:45 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Aug 18, 11:45 AM
    Will do, thank you Fruitcake
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 22nd Aug 18, 12:20 PM
    • 3,426 Posts
    • 4,250 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #6
    • 22nd Aug 18, 12:20 PM
    • #6
    • 22nd Aug 18, 12:20 PM
    THat wording is sufficient to meet ONE and only ONE of the requirements of POFA
    Have you checked every other requirement of Para 9?
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 22nd Aug 18, 1:02 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 18, 1:02 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 18, 1:02 PM
    Unfortunate i’ve read through all of the wording in POFA 2012 incl. paragraph 9 and the NTK meets them all.
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 24th Aug 18, 2:05 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    • #8
    • 24th Aug 18, 2:05 PM
    • #8
    • 24th Aug 18, 2:05 PM
    Does the signage in the car park have to mention something about a privacy notice explaining the keepers right to a subject access request?
    Many thanks
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 25th Aug 18, 12:27 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    • #9
    • 25th Aug 18, 12:27 PM
    • #9
    • 25th Aug 18, 12:27 PM
    OK, I have put this lot together to use as my POPLA appeal, any opinions would be very welcome. I have to submit it before 28th.

    POPLA Verification Code xxxxxxxxxx
    MET Parking Services ref: xxxxxxxx

    Dear Sir/Madam
    I am appealing the PCN from MET Parking Services as registered keeper of the vehicle.
    The charge is levied despite the driver of the vehicle not being identified.

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX and am appealing a parking charge from MET Parking Services (MET) on the following points:

    1. The driver of the vehicle did not exceed the Maximum Permitted Stay of 300 minutes as it visited the car park on 2 separate occasions during the 333 minute period.
    2. Failure to comply with the data protection act
    3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
    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.
    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    The details on above points are as listed below:-



    1. Exceeding the stay authorised.

    I must first point out that in my appeal to MET Parking Services, I made it clear that I had been informed by the driver of the vehicle that the car had paid two separate visits to the car park between the times stated and therefore did not, in fact, exceed the Maximum Permitted Stay of 300 mins as stated in their letter.This fact was not acknowledged in any way in MET’s rejection correspondence.
    They have provided no proof that the vehicle was parked for the duration of the time stated.
    As MET have obtained keeper details from the DVLA when no parking contravention had occurred, and had falsely insinuated a charge existed, they are misusing the personal data of the motorist and causing harassment and distress.

    2. Failure to comply with the data protection act.

    Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
    BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:

    "It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or
    registered keeper data, you must:
    - be registered with the Information Commissioner
    - keep to the Data Protection Act
    - follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    - follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks
    The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice



    The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:
    This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:

    Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)

    "the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code."

    "If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it."

    "You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals"

    "You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment.


    "If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary."

    "Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park."

    “Note: in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues”


    "A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate."

    The quotations above taken directly from the ICOs CCTV Code of Practice state that if NCP wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that NCP must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

    It therefore follows that I require NCP to provide proof of regular privacy
    impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has "a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate".

    The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

    "5.3 Staying in Control
    Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:

    “tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;"

    "7.6 Privacy Notices

    It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.

    One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access."

    NCP has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keeper’s right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, NCP has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.
    As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, this operator is illegally obtaining data from the DVLA.

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

    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. 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.''

    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

    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:

    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.

    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.

    The large sign relating to 'Terms and Conditions' with important information about ANPR cameras and 'fines' being obscured by the parking charge tarrif sign as well as lamp posts and railings. The fact that this signage has to be read whist traveling into the site makes their placement completely unacceptable.
    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.


    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 behind other signs, railings and posts (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no visible full terms displayed 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.

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


    ''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.''


    ''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 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.

    Furthermore, MET state that "the terms and conditions of the car park are clearly displayed on signs in prominent places around the parking area". I contest this as the picture of their sign, which they sent to me clearly shows that the full terms and conditions are printed in a text which is too small for the average person to read without standing in front of the sign at close proximity.

    Picture of sign that MET sent to me

    NOTE: 'Picture does not post'

    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 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).

    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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner 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


    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and 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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Aug 18, 4:56 PM
    • 61,456 Posts
    • 74,351 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Get rid of this (or move it up) because it is repeating the point about unclear signs, and yet you ended the appeal with 'no landowner authority', so it doesn't flow in the place where it currently sits at the end:

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and 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.
    And if this were me, if the vehicle visited twice, I would be making efforts to corroborate that fact (e.g. a witness statement attached, from the passenger - you recall, the driver had a PASSENGER, think hard...they did...!).

    Or Google Location proof if they driver has that tracking on their phone?

    Or proof of where the car/driver went in between (a receipt from a shop, you know, that one from down the back of the sofa from the same day/right time...).

    Or a copy of the Blue Badge (if true) of said passenger, arguing that they needed a reasonable adjustment of time as they were frail/elderly/slow moving or had a medical condition that means they need longer to go about daily life.

    I would have the fact that this was two visits, as the first point of appeal, and give timings and details about why and when the car drive in/out, plus the above proof or just that vital 'passenger witness statement' (think hard).
    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.

    • 1505grandad
    • By 1505grandad 25th Aug 18, 6:40 PM
    • 69 Posts
    • 135 Thanks
    1505grandad
    Also check ppc name - NCP mentioned several times.
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 25th Aug 18, 6:50 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    That's fantastic feedback, many thanks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 26th Aug 18, 9:52 AM
    • 37,391 Posts
    • 84,257 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Ian, please delete your post, then read the sticky thread for NEWBIES on the main parking ticket forum page, then post your question if you still need further advice.

    You have hijacked someone else's thread and you will not get any help here. You will get bespoke help on your own thread though, the best there is on the internet.
    Before you start your own thread, make sure you do not post any information about who did what that can identify the driver, unlike your post here.
    Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.

    If you can't delete your post, then delete the text and replace it with something like, posted in wrong place.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 26-08-2018 at 9:55 AM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 26th Aug 18, 5:57 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    Many thanks to all for your help. I'll let you know how I get on.
    Cheers
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 12th Sep 18, 9:16 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    MET Parking Services has now uploaded its evidence to the POPLA portal and I have to respond to it within 7 days. MET have uploaded a 41 page pdf which includes a site plan, photos of many of the signs around the car park and proof of landowner authority.
    It also includes two photos of the car, one on entry and one on exit. They have not produced any photos of the car in a parking space.
    On my appeal to POPLA, I also include a witness statement from the passenger of the vehicle who was in the car for the first entry and exit of the car park, stating approximate entry and exit times, as the double dipping is the main grounds of appeal.
    Below is the Operator case summary:
    In XXX appeal to POPLA XXX raises several grounds of appeal: 1. The vehicle made two separate visits to the car park within the 333-minute period. When our appeals team investigated the appeal, the found no evidence to support this claim. The photographic evidence collected by our ANPR system at this location shows that XXX vehicle remained in the car park for 333 minutes. 2. Failure to comply with the Data Protection Act. Whilst we note that this point of appeal is not relevant to the fact that the driver failed to comply with the notified terms and conditions of parking, for the sake of completeness we are confident that our signs meet the appropriate requirements of the Code of Practice and the ICO and are amended in line with the introduction of new legislation or amendments to the Code and ICO guidance from time to time. 3. We have not shown that the individual we are pursuing is the driver. XXX has not provided us with the details of the driver and so we are pursuing XXX as the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Please see a full explanation of why we may pursue XXX under POFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. 4. Inadequate signage. We are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of signs in place and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. 5. No evidence of landowner Authority. We would refer the assessor to Section E of our evidence pack, where we have included evidence of landowner authority in the form of our contract with the landowner. Commercially sensitive details have been redacted. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed around the car park. These included that there is a maximum permitted stay in the car park of 5 hours. The photographic evidence we have provided in section E of our evidence pack demonstrates that XXX vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. In light of the above we believe that the charge was issued correctly, and we believe the appeal should be refused.

    Any advice from here will be gratefully received
    Regards
    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 15th Sep 18, 9:28 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    I need to respond by tomorrow, so any input is most welcome
    Many thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Sep 18, 9:42 PM
    • 19,389 Posts
    • 30,623 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Draft up your response rebutting anything you disagree with, you want to argue, or aspects MET have got plainly wrong.

    Or were you asking that someone do this for you, given the urgency? Not clear from your post.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Sep 18, 10:03 PM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 9,377 Thanks
    KeithP
    I need to respond by tomorrow, so any input is most welcome
    Many thanks
    Originally posted by Bladeb0y
    Show us your draft.

    What has happened since 12th Sept?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Sep 18, 10:21 PM
    • 61,456 Posts
    • 74,351 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Send MET a SAR & demand that they interrogate their ANPR data for all times this car as captured at this location that day. If you look on their website for their privacy notice, it might give you the email addy of their Data Protection Officer, who you address a SAR to.

    Search the forum for examples...no asking what a SAR is please.

    And at the same time, comment to POPLA on this section:
    ...grounds of appeal: 1. The vehicle made two separate visits to the car park within the 333-minute period.
    I provided a witness statement (WS) from the passenger who was in the car only for the first visit, and they gave an approx FIRST exit time. POPLA is reminded that a WS is routinely accepted from operators, so the same must apply to appellants, and is evidence in its own right that the PPC must disprove.

    The burden shifted to MET to refute the WS, perhaps by showing a full list of partially-redacted VRNs around the corroborated first exit time, or a full run of redacted ANPR images at the time the passenger confirmed the car FIRST exited, or a zoomed-in ANPR showing how many people were in the car at all times, if they say the passenger is lying (which they are not).

    MET have not supplied any evidence to dispute the WS confirming that the car DID leave earlier, then returned. ANPR is known in a damning BPA article, to default to 'first in last out photos' in double visit cases, so for MET to simply point to those 2 images again, shows no evidence of any 'investigation' and the WS stands.

    Merely bleating: ''When our appeals team investigated the appeal, the found no evidence to support this claim. The photos collected by our ANPR...show that XXX vehicle remained in the car park for 333 minutes'' is not evidence of their claimed 'investigation' so I have sent them a SAR for all images that they DIDN'T show to POPLA, conspicuous by their absence, given the WS.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-09-2018 at 10:26 PM.
    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.

    • Bladeb0y
    • By Bladeb0y 15th Sep 18, 10:45 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Bladeb0y
    Thank you coupon-mad. I think you have given me enough guidance to have the confidence to send a strong response.
    Your time and effort is very much appreciated.
    Regards
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

3,702Posts Today

8,316Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin