PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MET Parking Services - Southgate Park Car Park - Notice To Hirer, Fine Received
FlyingSquad
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Hi all


Summary of case below:

- The vehicle in concern is a lease car, currently on a 2 year PCH lease.

- This notice to hirer letter was sent directly to the hirer.

- The driver entered the Southgate Park Car Park near Stansted airport to go to the McDonald's on the site. There is also a Starbucks and another kebab type food outlet on the site, all within the same car park.

- There were no available car parking bays immediately outside the McDonald's premises. The car was eventually parked in the next available bay, which happened to be closer to the Starbucks than the McDonald's. That said, the McDonald's was a mere 6 meters
(footsteps) away.

- It was not obvious that the car park was split, between McDonald's and Starbucks. One would and it's fair to assume that the site fascilitated parking for all customers for either chain. There were no obvious signs the hirer could see to suggest otherwise.

- There is a 1 hour free time limit for parking and the stay in concern, did not exceed this.

- The driver did not leave the Southgate Park Premises, as this letter suggests in the alleged contravention. They remained within the grounds of the site and where the car was parked.

- The letter was received on Sat 15th September. This is 33 days from the date of issue (17th August 2018) and 66 days since the alleged contravention date (13th July 2018). Are there any grounds to challenge due to the time elapsed?

- The letter confusingly states "This charge relates to the period pf parking immediately prior to 11:07 on 13th July." This seems a rather odd and woolly way of stating the time of the alleged offense! If it's "immediately prior to 11:07", why not just state the actual time!?


A google search shows an abundance of complaints and similar cases regarding this company.

Apologies in advance if this has already been covered numerous times before, in which case, any pointers would be really appreciated. wink.gif


Many thanks in advance to anyone who can offer some assistance.

Kindest regards.



This post has been edited by FlyingSquad: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 08:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:59
Post #2


Member


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



Edit your post to remove any hint of who the driver was

The driver entered the car park etc

Hire cars are the easiest appeals to win

MET can only recover payment from the Hirer if it sent a copy of the hire agreement with the Notice
It is very rare that a parking company meets this requirement

Another appeal point is that the driver did not leave the site
It's not unheard of for a MET operative to walk into a McDonalds and ask for the driver of vehicle reg. *******
If there's no reply, a parking notice will be on its way

Other points are the poor signage and MET's contract with the land-owner
Many McDonalds sites are franchises
Asking MET to produce a contract will always result in a cancellation at the independent appeal to POPLA if MET refuses the first appeal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 16:01
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Edit your post so as not identify the driver.

All PPC's get hire and lease cars wrong, did they send the copy of the lease/hire agreement with the notice to hirer.

If they did not then they can only go after the driver as the hirer is not liable.

So get editing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timz01
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 16:32
Post #4


Member


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



Recently went through the exact same thing, where they cancelled at POPLA, mine was slightly different as they did go through the lease company but still they were not compliant with the PoFA.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121355

I also took some photos of the site last time I went back so have some up-to date photos of the lack of signage.

There was also another thread that I cribbed most of my info from that I will try and find for you.

Edit -- Here is it: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121534

This post has been edited by Timz01: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 18:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 21:08
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Edit your post as requested otherwise you will be dragging defeat out of the jaws of victory.

It has to go through the lease company or how else are they going to get the name of the hirer?

What is on the back of that Notice to Hirer? The front certainly does not contain the required statements. But the failure to provide documents will certainly be a POFA fail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 07:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 17:01) *
Edit your post so as not identify the driver.

All PPC's get hire and lease cars wrong, did they send the copy of the lease/hire agreement with the notice to hirer.

If they did not then they can only go after the driver as the hirer is not liable.

So get editing.


They did not send a copy of the lease/hire agreement with the notice to hirer letter.

QUOTE (Timz01 @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 17:32) *
Recently went through the exact same thing, where they cancelled at POPLA, mine was slightly different as they did go through the lease company but still they were not compliant with the PoFA.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121355

I also took some photos of the site last time I went back so have some up-to date photos of the lack of signage.

There was also another thread that I cribbed most of my info from that I will try and find for you.

Edit -- Here is it: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121534


Very helpful Timz01, really appreciate your efforts, I did notice your thread on this and glad it ended well.

QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 22:08) *
Edit your post as requested otherwise you will be dragging defeat out of the jaws of victory.

It has to go through the lease company or how else are they going to get the name of the hirer?

What is on the back of that Notice to Hirer? The front certainly does not contain the required statements. But the failure to provide documents will certainly be a POFA fail.


Ostell, will post a pic of the back of the notice to hirer later today. If I recall, it looks generic and concerns the complaints procedure/challenging the fine.

Many thanks to all for contributing so far. If anyone can help with templates that could be of use, that would be great.

P.S. Edited the original post, hopefully it reads better now!

This post has been edited by FlyingSquad: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 07:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 07:47
Post #7


Member


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



I can work out who drove from that

THE DRIVER entered..., noone else.
Go back and edit again
Read it through, and work out for every single line - can I identify who drove from this line? If the answer is YES, then change the line!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 07:50
Post #8


Member


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



Yes

Think about it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 08:22
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Excuse the naivety, edited again. Better?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 08:29
Post #10


Member


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



You've got it this time

We now need to work on the text for the appeal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 08:49
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Thanks Redivi.

Like I said, any templates/guidance on wording would be a great help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 09:22
Post #12


Member


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



Have a look around some Met Parking threads and compose something yourself. It's important that you put the work in to gain an understanding of the process.

Post your draft here for fine tuning.

However, don't be tempted to put together a load of cr*p hoping we will take pity on you and rewrite it; we won't! It's your appeal.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 10:36
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Here's what I've been working on, taking inspiration (in the form of amalgamating templates from a few sources on the forum) from other forum members who have had success. Appreciate your thoughts

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 on the following grounds:

- 1) The PCN was not issued in the authorised time period (14 Days) contrary to section 9 (4) of the Act. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the prescribed relevant period of 14 days. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me.

- 2) There was no Windscreen ticket issued in accordance with the conditions as per POFA so there can be no keeper liability.

- 3) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 3). The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

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.

Furthermore:

- 4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

- 5) No evidence of Landowner Authority – which should fully comply with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, they will be asked to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, should this be escalated to POPLA.



Taking into account all of the above and 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,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 10:47
Post #14


Member


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



I think you need to detail why you can state that it wasn't issued in time.

Your major point, which should be at the top, is the lack of a copy of the hire agreement as required under PoFA sched 4 para 13(2).

Others will, no doubt, have other comments.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 11:06
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Thanks cabbyman for the good advice.

Updates made as suggested, any further very welcome of course...


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 on the following grounds:

- 1) First and foremost, MET Parking Services has failed to provide the hirer a copy of the hire agreement as required under PoFA schedule, 4 para 13(2). Should MET Parking Services choose not to cancel this PCN, then I would suggest the required hire agreement is supplied, for the benefit and reference of both the hirer and POPLA, in the event of escalation.

- 2) The PCN was not issued in the authorised time period (14 Days) contrary to section 9 (4) of the Act. The PCN was received on Sat 15th September. This is 33 days from the date of issue (17th August 2018) and 66 days since the alleged contravention date (13th July 2018).

I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the prescribed relevant period of 14 days. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me.

- 3) There was no Windscreen ticket issued in accordance with the conditions as per POFA so there can be no keeper liability.

- 4) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 3). The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

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.

Furthermore:

- 5) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

- 6) No evidence of Landowner Authority – which should fully comply with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, they will be asked to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, should this be escalated to POPLA.



Taking into account all of the above and 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,

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 11:10
Post #16


Member


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



NOOOooooooo! Don't give them the chance to correct their error! They didn't include it; end of story.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 11:39
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Section 9 and 14 days isn't relevant as this was a notice to hirer rather than to keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 11:41
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



laugh.gif You can tell I don't do this often.

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 on the following grounds:

- 1) First and foremost, MET Parking Services has failed to provide the hirer a copy of the hire agreement as required under PoFA schedule, 4 para 13(2).

- 2) The PCN was not issued in the authorised time period (14 Days) contrary to section 9 (4) of the Act. The PCN was received on Sat 15th September. This is 33 days from the date of issue (17th August 2018) and 66 days since the alleged contravention date (13th July 2018).

I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the prescribed relevant period of 14 days. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me.

- 3) There was no Windscreen ticket issued in accordance with the conditions as per POFA so there can be no keeper liability.

- 4) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 3). The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

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.

Furthermore:

- 5) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

- 6) No evidence of Landowner Authority – which should fully comply with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, they will be asked to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, should this be escalated to POPLA.



Taking into account all of the above and 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,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 11:43
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



QUOTE
Section 9 and 14 days isn't relevant as this was a notice to hirer rather than to keeper.


Still needs correcting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 12:04
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Thanks guys. I've taken the bit about section 9 and 14 days out, although I was hoping it would still be relevant and be another point to challenge on. Does seem like a long time has elapsed since the alleged contravention and the date the PCN was received. Is there any other legal clause I can bounce back to them and add here instead regarding the 14 days?

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 on the following grounds:

- 1) First and foremost, MET Parking Services has failed to provide the hirer a copy of the hire agreement as required under PoFA schedule, 4 para 13(2).

- 2) There was no Windscreen ticket issued in accordance with the conditions as per POFA so there can be no keeper liability.

- 3) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 3). The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

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.

Furthermore:

- 4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

- 5) No evidence of Landowner Authority – which should fully comply with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, they will be asked to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, should this be escalated to POPLA.



Taking into account all of the above and 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,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: Tuesday, 13th November 2018 - 03:38
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.