Problem with Chiltern Railways, High Wycombe, and MET Parking

[CF1973]

Hi,

 

Here's another experience. I parked at High Wycombe station two Saturdays ago. The night before at about 2340 hours using the Ringgo app I booked my parking and paid the Chiltern Rail Day rate of £4.50 (£4.90 total). Without realising it the Ringgo system booked me a session from 2339 to 2359 on the Saturday confirmed by text message which I ignored believing it to be a glitch in the Ringgo system which would not amount to anything. I parked from 11.00 am to 1930 that day. I returned to find a MET parking charge notice saying I had failed to display a ticket or failed to have parked during a valid parking session. I have "appealed" to them online. I sent them the invoice copy from Ringgo (which shows Chiltern Railways as the addressee) showing that I had paid and pointing out that the £4.50 was a "day rate" as advertised by Chiltern on their website and included a screen print and -pdf copy of the charges which in my view entitled me to park anytime between 0000 hours and 2359 on that date subject to the car park not being full. Today I have received a letter from them rejecting my appeal on the basis of failing to display a valid ticket. Interestingly, they have sent me details for appealing to POPLA which I intend to do. I have also submitted an appeal to Ringgo but they have not responded. Have you any further advice on my case as to grounds for appeal etc.

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I've started a new thread for you so you can have advice that is specific to your problem. Please continue to post here, the guys should be along later.

 

My best, HB

[ericsbrother]

well, you paid the correct fee so the claim against you is without merit.

Your appeal to POPLA should state that you paid the prescribed fee via ringgo and therefore a ticket is not a requirement of the contract entered into so it cannot be a breach of the conditions of parking.

Furthermore, as you have paid the prescribed fee no loss has been caused to MET parking and therefore their claim against you is in any case an unlawful penalty and not an actual loss or a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by your actions.

You do not believe that the land managed by MET is "relevant land" as far as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is concerned so the claim against you by MET is without cause.

 

I bet that you win your appeal based on the first or second point as the third one will kill MET parking and the BPA will lose another member so it wont receive a mention. Dont worry, all of this will help generate a change in the law eventually and these companies will disappear.

[CF1973]

Many thanks, I will report back on the outcome.

[armadillo71]

As you seem to have appealed the Notice To Driver, then the POFA is not being used.

 

But Chiltern Railways say on their website;

 

'MET Parking Services Limited are retained and authorised to manage*Chiltern Railways'*car parks with a view to ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of parking as stated on the signs displayed in the car parks and under the Railway Byelaws.'

 

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/help/parking-your-car

 

Mention that as well as the other points ericsbrother stated.

[CF1973]

On re-reading the letter I now note that MET are accusing me of having paid the parking fee some hours after I parked. The say I paid at 2338 hours on 16 August 2014. This is in spite of me supplying them with a copy of the Ringgo (Chiltern) invoice which shows the date of issue (i.e. payment) was 15 August 2014. I can also verify this by bank statements showing time and date of the transaction. Are they really that superficial or stupid?

[ericsbrother]

No, they are greedy and will never admit their mistakes. No matter, continue with your POPLA appeal.

The authority MET think they have is flawed, they claim to manage on behalf of.... and it is railway land so they have no right to make claims in their own name and the land is covered by the railways byelaw 14 and so not "relevant land" .The railway companies play along with this deception because they all get money out of it wheras if they use the byelaw 14 you get put in front of a magistrate and they dont get a penny, even if you are trespassing on railway property (you arent, you paid) so they will try and get you to cough up withour a real fight.

There is a thread about MET here and also look at the parking prankster's blog as there is an article there too, along with another reference source about MET being caught out lying about their authority to claim.