Parking charge notice - met parking services, riverside leisure centre

[ericsbrother]

several things that mean they wont want to take the matter to court to chase payment. firstly the sign at the entrance doesnt contain the core conditions of the contract so there is no contractual obligation, just an invitation to treat. Secondly, the signage inside the car park refers to other signs so again, no contractual obligation, another invitation to treat. Thirdly the sign with the core conditions is confusing beacuse it says firstly that a breah of the conditions result in a contract being formed. Well, if there is no contract there can be no breach. The terms of the contract come after this statement so it cannot be a contractual obligation to pay anything. At best the signage is inadequate and confusing but I would say that there is no contract, just an offer that can be ignored unless you wish otherwise. As other terms are implied and offered by way of the the Leisure Centre signage and web site you cannot make a contract without a "meeting of minds" over the desk of the centre itself and the car park signs are just public art.

As the centre refer to fines and they cant fine anyone, again it suggests that you can individually negotiate a contract for yourself and you did so the ANPR proves nothing other than you were there to chat to the centre staff to decide upon what terms are acceptable to you..

[silverfox1961]

Very good points ericsbrother.

 

I would also be querying the height of the cameras as IF they are approx 10 ft off the ground, they are surely going to miss vehicles coming in and going out as the height limit for the car park is 3 mtrs (approx 10 ft)

 

The sign allowing extra time by registering at reception should be placed right by the door as well as where it is. I wouldn't take any notice of it.

 

There is also the question of the land itself. Places for People are managing the leisure centre on behalf of Norwich City Council and Met Parking are acting for Places for People. Do they have the landowners permission to act in that capacity? I would want to see that contract when it goes to POPLA.

 

I suspect (hope) they have no legal standing to issue PCNs

[ericsbrother]

they certainly wouldnt stand a chance in a court so argue the points and even if POPLA think that you are wrong it wont go any further as they will have to explain themselves to someone who is paid to know.

[Mr Ferfus]

I am looking at their appeals from on their website, and they require that I enter a name and address. I'm wondering which name to Put on the form since I'm filling it in.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]59379[/ATTACH]

[ericsbrother]

I wouldn't use their online form but write to them at the address on the NTK. If it is a PO box then your appeal should be that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the PoFA as it does nto have a proper service address and therefore no keeper liability has been created.

You can aslo refer to "the keeper" and "the driver at the relevant parts so the driver entered a contract with the staff at the leisure centre whcih overrides their contractual claim and so no contract exists between the driver and the parking co so no keeper liability can be created.

[Mr Ferfus]

I wouldn't use their online form but write to them at the address on the NTK. If it is a PO box then your appeal should be that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the PoFA as it does nto have a proper service address and therefore no keeper liability has been created.

You can aslo refer to "the keeper" and "the driver at the relevant parts so the driver entered a contract with the staff at the leisure centre whcih overrides their contractual claim and so no contract exists between the driver and the parking co so no keeper liability can be created.

 

Thank you, i shall get onto that right away

[f16]

I wouldn't use their online form but write to them at the address on the NTK. If it is a PO box then your appeal should be that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the PoFA as it does nto have a proper service address and therefore no keeper liability has been created.

You can aslo refer to "the keeper" and "the driver at the relevant parts so the driver entered a contract with the staff at the leisure centre whcih overrides their contractual claim and so no contract exists between the driver and the parking co so no keeper liability can be created.

 

I don't have the crystal ball ............. But I think I see MET Parking coming in on a "flat spin" on this !!!

Signage worded by some uneducated goon in a backroom :lol:

[Mr Ferfus]

after a week and a half of waiting for them to reply, they have rejected the appeal based on "the terms and conditions............clearly stated on signs prominently displayed around the car park, including that there is a 2 and a half hour maximum stay" and "we are confident that there are a sufficient number of signs warning the driver of time limits in place"

 

obviously i disagree that there is sufficient signage, and i still feel that the staff should accept SOME liability for what has happened.

 

they have supplied us with a popla code and oddly enough a form to send to popla, however i am slightly suspicious as to the authenticity of the form,m since it has misspellings and typing errors such as "can i submit t he appeal form manually?"

 

the other part that concerns me is "please note that if you opt to appeal to popla, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £50 and should popla's decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100"

 

 

i am unsure as to where to go from here, and any help that you can provide will be immensely helpful to us.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Mr Ferfus

[Bazooka Boo]

You can appeal online using the code these cowboys gave you.

https://www.popla.org.uk/appeal.htm

 

I wouldn't pay any attention to their puerile comment about 'losing the right' to pay the 'discounted rate'. you won't be paying anything anyway.

[silverfox1961]

From tomorrow, the appeals service has changed.

 

I would at least leave appealing till then.

 

This is the link to the new service.

 

http://www.popla.co.uk/

 

Hold fire for others to help with the wording

[ericsbrother]

To be Mr picky, uf you fail at POPLA there is no change in the liability so there is no compulsion to pay them, just that if they want to claim from you via the courts then they can say they have followed the Accepted Code of Practice for their ATA. It doesnt mean they are actually right as POPLA cannot consider certain things and may not have all of the evidence available by both parties to properly assess whether the parking co has a claim. POPLA cannot consider matters raied by the Equalities Act or interpret the suitability of the signage in relation to the site for example, only take the word of the parties it is as stated or not. It would be very difficult for them to decide on planning issues or multiple reasons for appeal so they will look at one argument from the appellant and that is normally enough.

[ericsbrother]

The small signs refer to other signs so unless that larger sign next to the disabled parking space in photo 5 is also the same as the sign at the entrance they are "invitations to treat" and not contracts. This allows you to accept vary or reject their terms and as the leisure centre can vary them this reinforces this statement of their actual nature.

[Mr Ferfus]

From tomorrow, the appeals service has changed.

 

I would at least leave appealing till then.

 

This is the link to the new service.

 

http://www.popla.co.uk/

 

Hold fire for others to help with the wording

 

Help with wording would be greatly appreciated.

[Mr Ferfus]

can anyone help with this?

 

the deadlone is in 8 days

[ericsbrother]

. 1. The appellant does not believe that the parking co has a contract with the landowner that assigns the right to make claims in their own name and puts is to strict proof that such a contract exists.

2. The signage is an "invitation to treat" and not a contract so no breach of contract occurred as one wasnt offered or accepted.

Dont forget, they have to prove their case, not you disprove it so they will have to supply POPLA with copies of the signage, contracts etc..

[Mr Ferfus]

im doing the appeal now, and i was wondering if anyody can help with it?

 

im a little stuck on one part of the form in the "the vehicle was not improperly parked > inadequate signage" section.

 

i have entered text in the summary and "why you perceive that the terms were not properly signed", and have attached photos of the signage, but there is a further section that reads "can you upload any evidence to support your position?"

 

this to me reads as the same thing as the "Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that the terms and conditions were not properly signed?" section and im at a loss as with what to do now.

 

somebody was helping with this and provided some wording but they seem to be getting angsty about my asking for help.

[ericsbrother]

they have to provide the evidence, all you have to say is that they are not adequate and say you require strict proof to the contrary.

I wouls always send in a paper appeal as you can write whatever you want and dont have to give the wrong impression by trying to fill out a box where the wording is already in the parking co's favour.

[Mr Ferfus]

they have to provide the evidence, all you have to say is that they are not adequate and say you require strict proof to the contrary.

I wouls always send in a paper appeal as you can write whatever you want and dont have to give the wrong impression by trying to fill out a box where the wording is already in the parking co's favour.

 

im referring to the popla appeal

 

i managed to sort out what goes where, and have submitted the popla appeal (just in time too).

 

now im just waiting for the tracking password to come through......

[ericsbrother]

No, I was referring to POPLA, you can always get your angle across when you dont have to use the biased fill-boxes. The wording is chosen by the BPA, not actually designed to get to the bottom of things. they dont want you to win dont forget and OS ltd are new at this so we dont know how independent or clued up they are. they arent that bright when it comes to other matters so i expect they use the same level of staff to do this up to the point where they meet a proper challenge and then will have to get someone with legal knowledge to look into it.

[Mr Ferfus]

today we have received a set of images and arguments from met parking (5 days after they submitted them to popla) and they have made arguments to every point we made.

 

i used officelens to scan all the pages and have assembled them into a pdf, which i am uploading (personal details erased of course).

 

we are unsure as to what to do now and any help is greatly appreciated.

 

of note is their image of the entrance sign, which includes a bald tree. this tree, throughout spring and summer obstructs the sign.

[silverfox1961]

You have appealed to POPLA. This their evidence pack which they have submitted.

 

Are you sure you want your name visible in the documents?

 

Is the entrance sign the one they have provided the image for or is it the one we saw on streetview? (the signs may have been changed since 2014 when Google passed by)

 

I notice that no contract between Norwich City Council and Riverside management team has been supplied.

 

As for the rest of the evidence, I will have to let others look at it

[Mr Ferfus]

You have appealed to POPLA. This their evidence pack which they have submitted.

 

Are you sure you want your name visible in the documents?

 

Is the entrance sign the one they have provided the image for or is it the one we saw on streetview? (the signs may have been changed since 2014 when Google passed by)

 

I notice that no contract between Norwich City Council and Riverside management team has been supplied.

 

As for the rest of the evidence, I will have to let others look at it

 

Oddly enough they haven't supplied an image of the largest sign at the entrance, only an image of the smaller sign that is obscured by a tree ( conveniently not obscured in their image).

 

As for name, im not sure what you mean, are you referring to the one I uploaded or their documents?

[armadillo71]

Had a quick scan of the evidence pack and they state they are not using schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

 

This means there is no keeper liability and only the driver can be held liable...

 

I thought you had stated that you were not the driver?

[Mr.P]

As for name, im not sure what you mean, are you referring to the one I uploaded or their documents?

 

Mrs Ferfus' name is showing in two places on page 2 in the time line of events and correspondence.

[ericsbrother]

If you look up the company Met have signed the contrcat with they are not the landowners but a management co so there is no contract that is valid for them to make claims in their own or the landownwers name.

Read through all of their evidence and use points like this one to rebut their evidence. send in copies of images they arent using and use them to counter their arguments. We know that all of these parking co's build themselves on clay feet so start knocking them down.