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
    • jblu
    • By jblu 15th Sep 18, 8:42 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 1Thanks
    jblu
    MET Standted BP POPLA
    • #1
    • 15th Sep 18, 8:42 PM
    MET Standted BP POPLA 15th Sep 18 at 8:42 PM
    Hello,

    So the thing is that MET claims that my car overstayed at their land, where it was 30 min allowed and it stayed 45. The driver did not know how long it was allowed and he was taking his time, so I was quite surpised with that PCN. He used jet wash and he thought it does not count to the time he stayed there... I'm trying to say that the signs are put in wrong places and there should be more time to use services and that the car wash are might not be within car park area. Please have a look and let me know what you think.
    Last edited by jblu; 15-09-2018 at 9:57 PM.
Page 1
    • jblu
    • By jblu 15th Sep 18, 8:47 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 18, 8:47 PM
    draft
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 18, 8:47 PM
    (..) I wish to appeal against the received Notice to Keeper on the following grounds:

    1. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f).
    2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
    3. No sufficient entrance signs and signs with terms and conditions in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
    4. No evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    5. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance
    6. ANPR System is not reliable and inaccurate


    1. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f).

    Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires NtK to:

    “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;“
    On the NtK received there is no information fulfilling the above condition.
    As Paragraph 4 states that:
    “(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;”
    failure to include the warning mentioned in paragraph 9 (2) (f) in the NtK issued by MET Parking Services and the fact that that MET Parking Services has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, means that MET Parking Services have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant.

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, 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 have the right not to name that person.

    As only an evidenced driver can be told to pay and there is provided no evidence regarding who was driving, the parking charge cannot pursued without a valid NTK from myself as a keeper.

    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.”

    2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

    The BPA’s Code of Practice (13) states that there are two grace periods: one at the start and one at the end.

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1):
    “If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2):
    “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4):
    “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    The BPA's Code of Practice points 13.2 and 13.4 clearly state that the Grace Period to enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes each. Whilst (13.2) and (13.4) do not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period each should apply.

    Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association
    (BPA):

    “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which MET Parking Services claims was 45 min) is not eligible for a grace period, given:
    a) The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific terms and conditions signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.2 and 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
    b) The mentioned car park is small and always busy, and it was full at the moment of my car entering it, so it took long for the driver to find the right parking space.
    c) The failure to place signage in places where it is safe to read them and to make signs visible from all parking spaces and legible once located (figures 2, 7 and 10).
    d) The lengthiness of MET Parking Services signage (see figure 1 and real view on figures 2, 5, 7 and 8) in terms of word count and its font size, which appears to be too small, as discussed in the next point.

    All mentioned above factors increase the time taken to:
    • Locate a sign indicating entrance
    • Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
    • Read the full terms and conditions
    • Decipher the confusing information being presented
    • Use services provided by petrol station
    • Return to car and safely leave the car park

    3. No sufficient entrance signs and signs with terms and conditions in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:
    “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix B) states:
    “If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”

    Figure 2 and 3 show the view at the entrance and exit of the car park. Figure 4-6 show the entrance of the car wash area, figure 7 and 8 shows the side view of the car wash area entrance. Figure 9 shows car wash area exit.

    It is straightforward to conclude from these pictures that:

    • The first car park sign on the entry, which is different from other placed within the claimed car park area, is actually too far from the entry so a driver does not expect it and may not notice it. Also, it does not state all terms and conditions, does not inform about any charges that may apply. The font and amount of information written makes it unreadable and what is more, it blurs with the environment, being unnoticeable between other signage and markings next to it, especially when a vehicle is moving. I believe that the speed of a vehicle was not taken into the account and therefore it is against BPA Code of Practice, 18.2, which states:

    “The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.”

    • There are road markings separating the car wash area exit, but not entry and there are no signs with car park terms and conditions / signs are impossible to notice, therefore it is not clear if this is still car park area.

    • There is no clear sign indicating the entrance/exit of the venue and no ground boundary marking indicating the start and end of the venue. Signs IN/OUT indicate direction not land borders.

    As a result, it is impossible for anyone to conclude that a controlled area is entered.
    Also, I believe that car park and car wash areas are separate as the signs do not explain what 'car park area' is and where the borders are. Moreover, when entering the car wash site there are no signs with any terms and conditions. The only sign with terms and conditions is placed within the wash area and in a place where it is impossible to notice it. On the day of claimed parking overstay, my car was using jet wash. It is not a surprise that the driver did not see the sign. Figures 4-8 clearly show that the sign is placed past the entry to car wash area, parallel to the road and after the turn to jet wash, which makes it impossible to read and even spot when using jet wash. There is a doubt whether the sign actually refers to car wash area or not.

    All items above indicate the contravention of BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) which states: “you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the
    parking area.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
    “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand” and “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways”.

    I believe the MET Parking Services car park signs (figures 1 and 2) are inadequate and illegible in a number of ways. They are not conspicuous, legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.
    It is, first of all, because of the amount of text that must be read. It clearly violates BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) and appendix B. Secondly, they are poorly situated (for example only one sign and at the very bottom of BP shop, figures 10 and 11), easily unnoticeable (figure 5,6), causing confusion, sometimes in places where it is dangerous to read them (figure 2).

    The images in figures 2, 5, 6, 10, 11 clearly show that signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious, lost between other signs and markings, parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. 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 cannot be reasonably assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park, nor parked near one.
    This case is similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, 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.''

    A similar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks from September 2017 (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    From the evidence shown above (figure ), the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I require MET Parking Services to strict prove the size of the wording on their signs and the size of the parking charge.
    The letters seem to be no larger than 40 font size going by this guide:
    [link]
    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
    [link]
    ''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:
    [link]
    “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.''

    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.”

    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:

    http://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:

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

    This case, by comparison, as discussed above, 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.

    When the driver arrived at the BP Stansted car park it was impossible to a read and understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (in unsafe places, not visible from all parking spaces [figures 10 and 11]) and the terms and conditions are illegible. There is no chance to see any sign when parking in one of the spaces close to the petrol station’s shop doors.
    As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.

    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 this case had not seen any signs) therefore, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Met Parking Services as there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

    The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 includes information about 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. According to POFA 2012, the 'adequate notice' is:
    ''(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''.
    Having considered the MET Parking Services signage against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I conclude that the signage at the site is insufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of drivers as the fine is illegible in photographs and does not appear at all at the entry to the site.

    I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on the date and time of claimed contravention from the driver's perspective. Also, I require MET Parking Services, instead of showing the closed-up, computer generated image of their sign, to show how the entrance and other signs appear from a driver's perspective and where all those signs are placed. I am certain that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and the computer generated images with signage terms, sent by MET, will not be sufficient to disprove this. 
    4. No evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

    As MET Parking Services do not have proprietary interest in the land, 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 Code of Practice) 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). Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put MET Parking Services 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.”
    Last edited by jblu; 18-09-2018 at 6:58 PM.
    • jblu
    • By jblu 15th Sep 18, 8:50 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 18, 8:50 PM
    draft part 2
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 18, 8:50 PM
    5. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a states that:

    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

    The PCN in question contains two images with vehicle and close-up license plate underneath. The time and date stamp and license plate are not part of the images, but were inserted, thus photographs were manipulated.

    I require MET Parking Services to present the original images, with the exact time and date stamp, showing the vehicle is actually parked within the stated area, rather than just passing by. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, failure to present such evidence would confirm the MET parking services collect random license plates of all vehicles passing by through using APRN and aiming to extract penalty from innocent people.
    Recently conducted by BBC investigation (27 Apr 2018)
    (link)
    shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee.
    Based on the fact above, I require MET Parking Services to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

    6. The ANPR system is inaccurate and not reliable.

    MET states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, they are not fully reliable nor accurate. The British Parking Association does not audit the ANPR systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has no possibility to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has not found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.

    As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first
    one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:

    Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about
    BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits':

    "You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said: "In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate" You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us. This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to”.

    POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a
    misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says:

    ''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.”
    “Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.''

    Secondly, ANPR data processing and/or system failure is well known, and is certainly inappropriate in a service and retail area, such as the location in question. The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws:
    [link]

    ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'' and they specifically mention the flaw of assuming that 'drive in, drive out' events are parking events. They state that: ''Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner''.

    In this case, as the driver drove in and briefly stopped, the ANPR system has indeed failed and the operator has breached the first data protection principle by processing flawed data from their system. Excessive use of ANPR 24/7 when such blanket coverage is overkill in terms of data processing, was also condemned by the BPA and the ICO:

    [link

    As POPLA can see from that, excessive use of ANPR is in fact, illegal, and no-one audits it except for the ICO when the public, or groups, make complaints.

    Additionally, under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require MET Parking Services to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that MET Parking Services produces evidence in response to these points.

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    Last edited by jblu; 18-09-2018 at 7:00 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Sep 18, 9:42 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 18, 9:42 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 18, 9:42 PM
    Have you already blabbed in the appeal about who was driving? Hope not.

    If not, where is the first point if this is at an airport, ''no keeper liability'' like in any APCOA Airport one? Because APCOA Airport ones are similar IF MET have not used the POFA.

    You need to NOW urgently (really, NOW) edit your first post, if you wish to protect the driver ID. See what I mean, read what you said there - EDIT it profusely unless you already threw away the winning point the keeper had, in your first appeal?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-09-2018 at 10:34 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Sep 18, 9:50 PM
    • 20,196 Posts
    • 31,865 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 15th Sep 18, 9:50 PM
    • #5
    • 15th Sep 18, 9:50 PM
    Have you already blabbed in the appeal about who was driving? Hope not.

    If not, where is the first point if this is at an airport, ''no keep liability'' like in any APCOA Airport one?

    You need to NOW urgently (really, NOW) edit your first post, if you wish to protect the driver ID. See what I mean, read what you said there - EDIT it profusely unless you already threw away the winning point the keeper had, in your first appeal?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    5,200+ word copy and dump appeal, referencing both MET and Smart Parking, yet falling at the first hurdle with an 'I, I, I ......'.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • jblu
    • By jblu 15th Sep 18, 10:03 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    • #6
    • 15th Sep 18, 10:03 PM
    Thanks
    • #6
    • 15th Sep 18, 10:03 PM
    No, didnt say who was driving, but sent the receipt to confirm the service was used...
    It is not strictly at the airport but close to
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Sep 18, 10:36 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 15th Sep 18, 10:36 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Sep 18, 10:36 PM
    So as ever, it hinges on whether MET's NTK is a POFA-compliant one or not, which is explained in the NEWBIES thread where there is a link to Schedule4 for people to check for themselves (it is fairly easy...).

    I was thinking this might not be a POFA one, so, you tell us (without asking us to tell you)! And please don't just tell us what date it arrived, it's not just about the date.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • jblu
    • By jblu 15th Sep 18, 10:59 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 18, 10:59 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 18, 10:59 PM
    So as ever, it hinges on whether MET's NTK is a POFA-compliant one or not, which is explained in the NEWBIES thread where there is a link to Schedule4 for people to check for themselves (it is fairly easy...).

    I was thinking this might not be a POFA one, so, you tell us (without asking us to tell you)! And please don't just tell us what date it arrived, it's not just about the date.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Sorry, seems that I didn't quite get it. dont want to excuse myself but all this appeal thing is difficult to understand...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Sep 18, 11:37 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:37 PM
    • #9
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:37 PM
    I just told you where to read Schedule 4.

    We help people who help themselves and I would have expected ANY newbie to have compared their NTK to the very very easy to read, not complicated, para 9 requirements.

    Please read it in the morning after a good night's sleep. This is not hard.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • jblu
    • By jblu 16th Sep 18, 7:27 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    Okay, so it seems that the NtK is POFA compliant, but POFA says about 'the period of parking to which the notice relates' while NtK states the period of remaining at the car park, which are two different things because a car does need to be parked while staying somewhere, right? Does this count as POFA breach or something else?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 18, 7:33 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No it doesn't count; it's OK for a postal ANPR PCN not to evidence parking time. Not a silly question at all though and we've been asked about that a lot.

    Are you confirming that the PCN DOES have the 9(2)f warning to the registered keeper?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • jblu
    • By jblu 16th Sep 18, 7:51 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    Actually, they don't mention the period of 28 days after which they 'have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid' they just say I must pass the notice on to the driver and let them know his/hers details or that I can appeal within 28 days...
    • jblu
    • By jblu 16th Sep 18, 7:56 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    No it doesn't count; it's OK for a postal ANPR PCN not to evidence parking time. Not a silly question at all though and we've been asked about that a lot.

    Are you confirming that the PCN DOES have the 9(2)f warning to the registered keeper?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Can they fine for just staying and not parking then? That's not fair, is it legal?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 18, 8:25 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Can they fine for just staying and not parking then? That's not fair, is it legal?
    Well, they would 'assume' the car was parked, and if a PPC took a case to court they would put the Defendant to proof otherwise, then lose when wrong:

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

    CS018 ParkingEye v Mrs X (driving around for 31 minutes is not parking)
    Do NOT follow any other links on the Parking Prankster's website, only the case law. Disappointingly, PP continues to retain dodgy links too that have (reportedly, and I can show the threads if this is queried) caused posters here to lose money.

    Actually, they don't mention the period of 28 days after which they 'have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid' they just say I must pass the notice on to the driver and let them know his/hers details or that I can appeal within 28 days...
    Yes but you know that's two different sections of paragraph 9. Are you saying with certainty that 9(2)f - usually a lower paragraph than the one you said - is missing?

    If it's not there, that's why you appealed as keeper in the first place!

    How do people seem to miss the WINNING point ''no keeper liability'' off at POPLA stage and fiddle about with other things like 'no period of parking' and completely miss checking for the really obvious - and clearly vital mandatory wording - the 9(2)(f) keeper liability warning?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • jblu
    • By jblu 17th Sep 18, 9:08 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    Yes, 9(2)f, 28 days warning definetely missing.
    So I changed point 5:

    5. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f).

    Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires NtK to:
    “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;“
    On the NtK received there is no information fulfilling the above condition.

    As Paragraph 4 states that:
    “(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
    (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;”
    Failure to include the warning mentioned in paragraph 9 (2) (f) in the NtK issued by MET Parking Services and the fact that that MET Parking Services has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, means that MET Parking Services have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant.

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, 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 have the right not to name that person.

    As only an evidenced driver can be told to pay and there is provided no evidence regarding who was driving, the parking charge cannot pursued without a valid NTK from myself as a keeper.

    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.”
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 18, 9:19 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove this entire intro (...) IT IS NOT NEEDED, and the awful split infinitive:

    (..) I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
    And put #5 as your first point; you will win on no keeper liability hands down.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • jblu
    • By jblu 18th Sep 18, 7:02 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    Changed! Thanks a lot!
    I believe this my final version. Or is there anthing else that needs to be improved?
    • jblu
    • By jblu 19th Sep 18, 6:28 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    jblu
    one more question, do I need to attach that NtK to my appeal, as a proof?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 19th Sep 18, 6:32 PM
    • 19,865 Posts
    • 25,166 Thanks
    Redx
    one more question, do I need to attach that NtK to my appeal, as a proof?
    Originally posted by jblu

    yes if it backs up your appeal, no if it does not


    any NTK of theirs should be in their evidence pack, if and when they upload 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
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

2,407Posts Today

8,095Users online

Martin's Twitter