PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN at Southgate Car Park (Starbucks Stansted)
Timz01
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 17:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



Hello all,

Looking for some assistance with this one, the car is a company car registered to LEX hence the delay from getting the invoice to now, also it took the company a number of days to get the letter out to the driver.

Am I right in thinking the 14 day cheap rate is 14 working days?

Basically there is a McDonalds & Starbucks outside Stansted Airport, https://goo.gl/maps/FbLfv5k3Y8u. it would seem MET Parking have signs up saying you cant leave the appropriate carpark and have video of the driver parking, walking to the McDonalds next door and then returning.

They are going for a notice to hirer so not sure if that changes anything, my company does not have an issue with me dealing with this on behalf of the company.

The Notice is below, any thoughts on this one would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks
Tim




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 17:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 17:18
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,190
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Am I right in thinking the 14 day cheap rate is 14 working days?

No. But who cares about that - 'cheap' is ZERO! You won't be paying them!

Send the template for hirers in the MSE NEWBIES thread, the one written by Edna Basher, mentioned on this MSE thread today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5864580
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 17:35
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,249
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The hirer isn’t liable unless they’ve met all the conditions of PoFA - they haven’t...

One of the easiest companies to beat. Will back down when challenged and never do court...

Did they include a copy of the hire agreement for starters?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 17:36


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 18:28
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



So i guess the material bit is this:


QUOTE
13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—
(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and
(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).

(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
©a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


They have not sent me the copy of the hire agreement that would give them the right to claim the unpaid parking charge from the keeper. Therefore they cannot rely on the POFA to chase the Keeper / Driver for the "invoice"

Would a blatent copy paste work okay or do i need to add more to it?

QUOTE
To whom it may concern,

Parking Charge Notice [xxxx]: Vehicle Registration [yyyy]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge (xxxx) issued to me by MET Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why MET Parking Services Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

Given that MET Parking Services has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,


Many thanks
Tim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 18:34
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,249
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



You've got it...

The challenge is fine - although, I like to say either cancel it or give me a POPLA code so you can pay to be told to cancel it... laugh.gif


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 21:33
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,635
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Be more definitive, tell them what they have missed in particular but not limited to, para 14 (2) (a).

Send it so that it arrives about 2 days before the end of the 21 day period so that they don't get a chance to send a compliant NTH.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 16:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



Thanks all for your time,

So basically they have given 28 days starting on day after it was posted (23rd June) so on around Day 20, the 13th July i will post signed for to the address the following letter:


QUOTE
To whom it may concern,

Parking Charge Notice [xxxx]: Vehicle Registration [yyyy]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge (xxxx) issued to me by MET Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why MET Parking Services Notice to Hirer did not comply with the requirements of the POFA in particular but not limited to, para 14 (2) (a).

Given that MET Parking Services has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,


I guess if i write to them do i need to provide my own address, to stop them corresponding to my company address, or do you think appealing online with email address be easier?

Cheers
Tim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 17:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,635
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



With a hire car they can the 28 days normally allowed for action is reduced to 21 days, which is also the time limit that they have to send the Notice to hirer. That's 14 (3) and 14 (5) © in POFA.

I presume that the letter is still addressed to your company and not you own personal letter. You need to give them your name and address as the keeper. The NTH was not issued to you but to your company?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 17:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



Hi Ostell,

Correct, the letter was forwarded onto me by my company. It was just addressed to them.

I would prefer all correspondence to be put to me (mainly to save anything getting lost at work)

I will put my home address in the letter and send it 4 days before the 28th day.

Cheers
Tim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 20:35
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,635
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Submit the appeal a couple of days before the 21 days stating that you were the keeper at the time. As i said the relevant period is now 21 days, as I referenced in post #8.

Look around and you will find plenty of BOGOFF appeals that apply to the hirer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 20:43
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



No point paying for recorded delivery

First class post with a free receipt of sending from the Post Office or appeal online

If you appeal online, take some screen-shots
MET have a habit of mislaying strong appeals if they think a POPLA code will actually be used - IIRC more than 90% aren't

Another challenge point that you can use later is to require that MET provides a copy of the contract for THAT car park
It nearly always No Contests POPLA appeals if it's included

Many McDonalds are franchises and the request creates a difficulty
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 06:36
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



Thanks for the info, just a waiting game now.

Will report back when i hear from them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 12:33
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



Well guess what, they have rejected my appeal....

I assume I now appeal with the link to POPLA, thing is I am going on holiday now till the 17th Aug, I assume this wont make any difference as I have 28 days from the 2nd Aug to get my appeal in.









Is the appeal to POPLA exactly the same as the "appeal" I made to MET Parking?

Edit: I have just seen Redivi comment about asking for the contract with the McDonalds, the car park I had the audacity to use actually the Starbucks carpark, so does the same principal apply.

Cheers
Tim

This post has been edited by Timz01: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 12:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 13:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,635
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Yes, you list the failings to comply with POFA, all of them. Thy have missed many of the terms that must be included in section 14 of POFA. Spell it out in simple terms to POLA, as though they were 5 year olds.

Write it and post on here for critique before you send.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 13:34
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,941
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Search for my McD wins against Met at Gatwick.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 10:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



Shoot, so i compleatly forgot about this coming back from holiday, so i think i have to now do this by the 29th at the latest (no later then 28 days of the date of this letter, the 2nd Aug).

How does something like this sound on the POPLA appeals process?


________________________
Parking Charge Notice [xxxx]: Vehicle Registration [yyyy], POPLA appeal code [xxxxx]

To whom it may concern,

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge (xxxx) issued to me by MET Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I have confirmed to MET Parking that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

For MET parking services to invoke keeper liability for a parking charge they must fulfil all the requirements of schedule four of the POFA. I do not believe MET Parking have done this so they have forfeited the right to invoke keeper liability, please see below:


The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14(2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2):

(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
© a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)).

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents before or after my initial appeal.



No landowner Authority

This bit i am less sure about this part, are we now jumping over to the BPA code of practice? also should i have asked for this info before in my appeal or does it not matter? I have looked through oldewr posts Cabbyman but not sure what are the salient bits, i assume we are just working on the basis of probability that things are not in order between the landowner, Starbucks Franchisee and MET?


I question MET’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park. As most Starbucks Restaurants are franchises, I require MET to provide a contract specifically for this site.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put MET to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question MET’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in either their own name nor have they standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.
___________________________


Other comments, is it also worth bearing in mind, they are doing me for leaving the Starbucks Carpark and going to McDonalds (also run by MET) the sinage that says do not leave this carpark is facing away from the carpark, so i assume they want you to read it as you go into park, but this is very high on the left hand side of the road, if i hadn't gone looking on Streetview i would never have noticed it. is it also worth bringing this up as a point? Also the trip advisor page for this place is amazing, looks like they have caught out a lot of people...



Many thanks
Tim

This post has been edited by Timz01: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 10:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 06:52
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



They are trying ot charge *the driver*, which they cannot do because they dont know who they are. Unless you tell them.

You could add that into the signage - that the only condition saying you must not leave cannot be read whoile in the car park, so you have to break the conditoin in order to read it to find you are supposedly bound by it. this is contrary to good faith dealing and cannot be the basis of any contractual term, and so the charge cannot be issued correctly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 10:18
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



How does something like this sound?

POPLA appeal code [xxxxx]
Parking Charge Notice [xxxx]: Vehicle Registration [yyyy],

To whom it may concern,
I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge (xxxx) issued to me by MET Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I have confirmed to MET Parking that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)
2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces


1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)
For MET parking services to invoke keeper liability for a parking charge they must fulfil all the requirements of schedule four of the POFA. I do not believe MET Parking have done this so they have forfeited the right to invoke keeper liability.
The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.
Paragraph 14(2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2):
(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
© a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)).
The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents before or after my initial appeal.




2) No evidence of Landowner Authority
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).
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

3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible
The area around the Starbucks and McDonalds is clearly one location with two businesses, there is one vehicular entrance and MET parking operate the parking for both McDonalds and Starbucks.
The PCN has been issued allegedly 'leaving the site', I would contest that I did not leave the site, the PCN shows still photos of me parking, and walking over to McDonalds, in the images you cannot see one sign that says by walking over to McDonalds I will be breaking the so called contract I had agreed to.
There is only one sign that says parking is for Starbucks Customers only and this is on a high sign on the far left of the road as you enter the carpark.
Given at this point your attention is taken to minding pedestrians and locating a place to park it is not at all clear. I would have thought a sign at eye level facing towards the boundary of the carpark would be prudent and then would allow the operator to rely on the recent supreme court case.
Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the site' this means nothing if 'the site' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery areas, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park.
Not only that the signs that they are relying on to enforce the contract are high up on lamp posts and in small font and barely legible.

Given my points above I respectfully request that POPLA allow my appeal and cancel the PCN, I await your decision.

This post has been edited by Timz01: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 11:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 19:02
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,098



Bit image heavy but there seem to be a few MET parking posts i thought i would get some current signage.

They have now changed the signs, now it only says parking at Southgate park, but it does not define this at all, there are also no signs at all facing the car park that say if you leave here you will be breaking the so-called contract...

I wanted to update the POPLA challenge with these photos but it doesnt look like i can add to my appeal now i have submitted it, is that the case?









I also have a number of other photos, but the board wont let me post them all....

QUOTE


Just seen the other MET parking Stansted post, lets see if get the same result...

This post has been edited by Timz01: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 19:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 08:29
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



INdeed, you cannot add new evidnce. they tell you that at the start.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 12th November 2018 - 23:24
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.