Parking Charge - MET Parking

[extrobe]

Hi Armadillo71 , would you mind clarifying the NTK issues you mentioned?

 

The period of parking I think is on there & compliant - top right 'Actual Period of Stay'

 

Regarding the identity of the creditor - what would that look like if it was on there? 'We MET are the creditor'?

[armadillo71]

Hi Armadillo71 , would you mind clarifying the NTK issues you mentioned?

 

The period of parking I think is on there & compliant - top right 'Actual Period of Stay'

 

Your sentence contradicts it self. ' parking ' & ' actual period of stay ' are not the same thing. The pictures show a car entering and leaving a junction, not parking.

 

Regarding the identity of the creditor - what would that look like if it was on there? 'We MET are the creditor'?

 

Yes.

 

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph*6(1)(b)*is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

 

(2)The notice —MUST......

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

[extrobe]

Thanks - that makes sense - just because I was seen entering & exiting, doesn't show that I was parked - or where

 

 

I won't try raising it at this point, but did do some digging on the planning applications website, and couldn't see anything about putting up signs anywhere - though need a more detailed look in case it's buried with something else

[armadillo71]

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

 

 

(2)The notice must—

 

 

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

 

 

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

 

 

©describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

 

 

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

 

 

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

 

 

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

 

 

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

 

 

(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

 

 

(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

 

 

(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).

(4)The notice must be given by—

 

 

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

 

 

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

 

 

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

 

 

(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.

 

 

(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—

(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and

(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I may have missed some points...

[extrobe]

Thanks!

Here is was I've penciled to put in the additional comments box (max 2000 char!)

 

1) MET have supplied a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

a) The Protection of Freedoms act, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 states that the notice served MUST specify " the period of parking to which the notice relates"

- Given they only have images of the car entering & leaving, it is not possible for MET to determine the length of time the driver was actually parked, and so the Notice does not comply and is invalid

b) The same Paragraph states that the notice served MUST “ identify the creditor”

- This is not visible on the notice, and so the Notice does not comply and is invalid

2) MET have not addressed the fact that the driver has proven to have been a customer of the restaurant, and therefore had the permission of the landowner to park, overruling any alleged ‘contract’

3) MET have provided a site plan of the restaurant and the car park showing signage locations. This site map is several years out of date, and has been re-modeled dramatically in that time (to include the provision of a 2-lane drive through)

Therefore, their evidence regarding signage, and it’s locations, cannot be correct, and therefore cannot be considered (http://goo.gl/rxXsPf - planning application from 2013 – “Reconfiguration of the car park and drive thru lane”)

4) Point 3 notwithstanding, the Milton Keynes Planning Application Portal shows no entries requesting planning permission for parking signage or ANPR cameras to be installed, as is required by law.

- Therefore, unless MET can show otherwise, the signage and cameras have been erected illegally and cannot be used to enforce parking

5) MET base several of their arguments on the parking eye v Beavis case. Given this case is still being considered in court, it has no relevance on this charge. Therefore I maintain that the charge is excessive for an alleged 21 minute over-stay, amounts to an illegal fine, and by their own admission, includes the operating cost of the car park, rather than any true loss.

 

I've created a separate short-link for the planning application entry I'm going to give them - that way I'll know if they've actually looked at it.

[armadillo71]

A quick look at their evidence pack shows that MET claim they identify themselves as creditor but they do not.

 

Also the contract they show is dated 2010!

[extrobe]

Yep, everything relating to the actual site - contract, site plans etc are completely out of date - not sure how they can claim their signage complies when the apparent location is the middle of the drive-through lane

[armadillo71]

You have to make it clear that as registered keeper you are not liable for the charge because of the non compliant NTK.

[ericsbrother]

date of contract doesnt matter unless it is for a fixed term that has passed. likewise changes to site layout arent that important unless the company wants to claim certain signs etc are in places that dont exist.......

Start your appeal with the no keeper liability due to non compliant NTK and then say "in any case".... and then add your other points.

[extrobe]

Does anyone know if there is a time limit on POPLA reviewing the case?

 

I submitted my final responses to the MET evidence pack about a month ago now (2/10), and heard nothing since.

[silverfox1961]

Do you know which service is handling the appeal as the appeals process changed hands (while still being overseen by POPLA)

 

Can you check the status online?

[extrobe]

It's the 'new' service (popla.co.uk) - with the status being 'In Progress'.

[ericsbrother]

As long as you got it posted in time it is down to them. The parking co cannot attempt to collect until they make a decision so even if it is bad news they will have to wait for their pound of flesh.

[extrobe]

Well, it's the 2nd December, and still not heard anything from POPLA (still 'in progress')

 

Given this occurred in August, getting pretty ridiculous.

On the plus side, I've not had McDonalds in nearly 4 months, and no longer get the McNugget cravings

[extrobe]

Well, 4 months after I last heard from them, I've had an 'update' from POPLA, basically telling me that now the Beavis case has been dealt with, they're allowing myself and the operator a further chance to comment before they rule.

 

Dear extrobe

 

Your parking charge Appeal against MET Parking Services.

 

In order to assess your Appeal fully we need some further information. Please let us know:

 

The Supreme Court has now issued its decision in relation to ParkingEye-Vs-Beavis.

 

As previously advised, POPLA placed this appeal on hold until we had considered our position in relation to this. [i have never been advised of this]

 

We have now considered our position and will allow both sides to provide any further comments or evidence regarding the Supreme Court’s decision.

 

We asked parking operators for their responses first, so we were able to share them with appellants. The parking operator made no further comments / provided no further evidence for your appeal

 

Please provide your comments or additional evidence within seven days as responses after this point will not be considered.

 

We look forward to hearing from you shortly.

 

Please enter this information onto the portal using the log in details that were provided previously.

 

We need to receive this information within seven days of the date of this correspondence in order to include it as part of the assessment of the Appeal. Anything that is provided after this time may not be considered as part of the assessment and the decision will be made based on what has already been received.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

My planned response is something along these lines...

 

I have no record of your communication to me relating to this appeal and its relation to the ParkingEye-Vs-Beavis case - please ensure I receive I copy of this correspondence before proceeding for my records.

(The last communication from you was 28th September to confirm receipt of the case file from MET)

 

The ParkingEye-Vs-Beavis case has little relevance to this appeal

- the case was judged on the facts specific to that case. This was made clear in the judgement

- there were several more notable points raised in my appeal, and in my response to the case file submitted by MET - not only my questioning of the level of the charge

 

To rule on the appeal based on one single factor, and ignoring all the others, will be a failure of POPLA's duty, and any judgement against me without evidence of full assessment of the facts raised will be challenged rigorously.

[ericsbrother]

Forget your first point and your last point, just leave it with the middle section if you have no further rebuttal of their evidence. What you need to make clear is that you are being chased as the keeper and they have failed to use the protocols of the PoFA so there is no keeper liability. You may want to reiterate the points they fall down on.

the other points make it look like a rant and that wont help you and nor will telling them how to do their job. When you get a decision you will find that they only make onw point if the decision goes in your favour as they dont need to consider the others. doesnt mean they arent equally as valid, just not necessary to rule on all of them as the result would be the same.

[extrobe]

Thanks - I'll 'top & tail' it to get straight to the point

 

The ParkingEye-Vs-Beavis case has little relevance to this appeal

- the case was judged on the facts specific to that case. This was made clear in the judgement

- there were several more notable points outlined in both my appeal, and in my response to the case file submitted by MET

 

Principally, that MET have failed to to follow the protocols of the PoFA, and therefore there is no keeper liability.

[extrobe]

hmm, they say I have to log my comments on the portal - yet there's no such ability to - the only option I have is to withdraw!

 

[ericsbrother]

send a letter to ombudsmanservices ltd with the reference number and ask they they forward MET parking's new paperwork if any.

I liked to old system better as you had a much easier choice, online or post and both were as easy to use. Now they want online only (so old people cant complain about ANPR not spotting their Blue Badge)

[extrobe]

very frustrating, but I finally have movement at least.

 

POPLA has decided against me (though didn't bother telling me, found out via MET, and confirmed by logging into the site)

 

Won't post the whole response (unless it's worth doing) but they address, and reject, the a couple of the points I raised regarding permission from the landowner to exceed (albeit retrospective), and level of fine.

 

This point I thought was interesting...

I note the appellant states a member of McDonald’s customer services have confirmed in writing that overstaying is fine for genuine reasons, however, it is clearly displayed on the signage that there is a 90 minute maximum stay which the appellant would need to keep to when entering into a contract with the operator

 

They did not address the invalid letter to keeper due to it not being possible for them to know how long I was parked

 

Also of interest, they did address the singage, stating...

The operator has provided photographs of sufficient clear signage located throughout the car park

However, those photos aren't, and can't be, valid, as the site has been remodelled since the site plan they provided. I did provide a link to the planning application showing this, but they haven't looked at this (as in, the link I generated has not been clicked)

 

So, MET are now chasing for payment. Should I sit and wait for something more tangible from them, or should I force their hand on the matter? (I rather prefer the latter - get it over with rather than getting a dozen threat-o-grams)

[silverfox1961]

POPLA do get it wrong on occasion (lots) so your next step is to wait for Met Parking to take court action, if ever. From a different site, they say that Met have taken no one to court in the last year.

It is more likely that they will pass this on to a bottom of the barrel scraping debt collector who have as much power over you as I do.

[armadillo71]

Please post up the whole of the adjudication. How have they addressed the non compliant NTK?

[extrobe]

Of course - shown below (formatting is all mine - it was just a lump of text). As I say, they primarily focus on the Beavis case.

And no, no mentioned of the NTK

 

The operator has provided photographs of sufficient clear signage located throughout the car park, which clearly states that there is a 90 minute maximum free stay on site. The signage also explains that failure to adhere to the terms and conditions will result in the operator issuing a PCN to value of £100.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (COP) states entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.

I am satisfied that the entrance sign displayed meets the standards of those set by the BPA COP.

 

The BPA COP also states if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. In reference to this I am satisfied the operator has provided a contract confirming it is authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs to vehicles parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.

 

The appellant entered into a contract with the operator by parking the vehicle in the McDonald’s car park.

 

He states he was a genuine customer at the restaurant, which he has provided a bank statement showing this, however, this does not detract from the fact it remains the appellant’s responsibility to also adhere with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage by not exceeding the maximum stay.

 

I note the appellant states a member of McDonald’s customer services have confirmed in writing that overstaying is fine for genuine reasons, however, it is clearly displayed on the signage that there is a 90 minute maximum stay which the appellant would need to keep to when entering into a contract with the operator.

 

The appellant says the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

 

As the appellant did not adhere to the terms and conditions of parking, by exceeding the 90 minute maximum stay period, I am satisfied the PCN is valid. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

[silverfox1961]

Looks like POPLA have given a job to one of the adjudicators from the IPC. They have ignored your evidence. IF Met parking paid McDonalds a fee to ply their trade then the beavis judgement 'may' have become relevant but there are many other factors in your case that weren't considered.

 

I feel a judge would see it differently if it ever got that far.

 

Even if they took action, it would cost them far more than they could ever get back from you.

[armadillo71]

Post #33

 

You have to make it clear that as registered keeper you are not liable for the charge because of the non compliant NTK.

 

Did you actually include the above?

 

The adjudication seems to referring to you as the driver...