PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

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: 29
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
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:44
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



MSE Forum -> Newbies thread - contains all instructions for POPLA

You send it using the website as a PDF attachment
Whoile there look at other appeals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 14:51
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Cheers for the heads up. Let's see what happens!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:40
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Under OTHER, on the POPLA website, uploaded as an attache PDF document and you just put in the box:

Please see my appeal as hirer attached. I am not liable due to non compliance with POFA para 14 (the driver has not been identified) and also, my appeal relies on 'no landowner authority' and 'unclear signage' due to this being ONE car park, ONE entrance and a vague sign that allows ''customers'' to park.

Are you not going to add the usual other point people have used re this car park, that there is no evidence of the driver leaving any site, and if photos were taken that show a person driving, then parking, then walking to one of the two on-site restaurants, then this is clearly intrusive use of body-worn or hand-held or CCTV cameras and pays no regard to consumer rights to privacy under the GDPR, if this operator is taking a picture of every driver as they arrive then following them silently (rather than actually signposting the car park properly in the first place).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 09:35
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Great advice SchoolRunMum wink.gif , if only I had received it sooner; appeal already sent and unable to add further retrospectively. I’ll report back outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 11:32
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



OK so you can use the chance at COMMENTS stage, to point out the lack of evidence. You get one more bite at the cherry and whilst you can't add new stuff you CAN comment on the utter lack of evidence to support their case, and basically pick holes in their evidence pack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 17:04
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Hi all.

So POPLA refused the appeal on the following grounds:

"In his appeal to POPLA Mr XXXX acknowledges that he is the driver, stating “The PCN shows still photos of me parking, and walking over to McDonalds. From the images, there is not one sign that warns; by walking over to McDonalds I will be breaking the so called contract I had agreed to.”
He also states:
• The notice to hirer was not compliant with PoFA
As stated Mr XXXX has acknowledged being the driver and as such we are not seeking to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act.
• No evidence of Landowner Authority
We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
• Signs are not prominent, and McDonald’s is part of Southgate Park
McDonald’s car park is approached from a different entrance prior to passing McDonald’s restaurant, it has it’s own entrance and its own signage and does not adjoin Southgate Park’s car park at all. McDonald’s drive thru is also accessed from the road before you reach Southgate Park.
In Section E of our evidence pack we include copies of the signs, a site map showing their location, photographs of the signs in situ and also photographs showing Mr XXXX parked in close proximity to one of our signs.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 19 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that this is a pay by phone car park, that there is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers while they remain on the premises only, no free stay for visitors to premises not located in Southgate Park, that McDonald’s is not in Southgate Park. They also specifically state that if motorists wish to park here while they visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, they must pay to park from when their vehicle enters the car park.

Therefore the signs clearly advise motorists that McDonald’s is not on Southgate Park and they must pay to park in this car park if they wish to visit McDonald’s.

The terms and conditions include that if you wish to park here while you visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, you must pay from when your vehicle enters the car park. The evidence in Section E also demonstrates that no payment was made for parking.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this car park. They include that: this a pay by phone car park; there is a free stay period of 60 minutes for Southgate Park customers while they remain on the premises only; and if you wish to park here while you visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, you must pay from when your vehicle enters the car park. The evidence demonstrates and Mr XXXX acknowledges he left his car in the car park while he left the premises and did not pay for parking therefore we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused."



The 'operator information and evidence' section from POPLA goes on to say:

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to leaving their vehicle in Southgate Park car park without payment for parking and occupants left Southgate Park Premises.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant states the operator has ailed to deliver a fully complaint Notice to Hire in accordance with the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant says no presumptions can be made regarding the driver’s identity. The appellant says they exercise the right not to name the driver. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The appellant has questioned signage at the site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
I am satisfied that the appellant is the driver and as such, will be considering their liability for the PCN. The signage at the site states “PRIVATE PROPERTY. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE APPLY AT ALL TIMES. PLEASE READ THIS SIGN CAREFULLY. Motorists by visiting this area are entering into a contact and must comply with the terms and conditions of use and also accept liability to pay the parking charge if they failed to comply with them.
There are no concessions for disabled badge holders. PAY BY PHONE CAR PARK. FULL DETAILS OF TARIFF CAN BE FOUND ON THE TARIFF SIGNS LOCATED AROUND THE CAR PARK. PAY BY PHONE CAR PARK, 60 MINUTES FREE STAY FOR SOUTHGATE PARK CUSTOMERS WHILE THEY REMAIN ON THE PREMISES ONLY. TARIFFS APPLICABLE THEREAFTER. NO FREE STAY FOR VISITORS NOT LOCATED IN SOUTHGATE PARK. PLEASE NOTE: MCDONALD’S IS NO IN SOUTHGATE PARK. SEE TARIFF SIGNS FOR DETAILS. NO RETURN TO SITE WITHIN 60 MINUTES OF VEHICLE DEPARTING. MAXIMUM FREE STAY IS 60 MINUTES. YOU MAY EXTEND YOUR STAY UP TO 3 HOURS BY USING THE PAY BY PHONE SERVIC. IF YOU WISH TO PARK HERE WHILE YOU VISIT LOCATIONS NOT IN SOUTHGATE PARK, SUCH AS MCDONALD’S, YOU MUST PAY FROM YOUR VEHICLE ENTERS THE CAR PARK…If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged £100…”.

Further signage states “Starbucks customer parking only. Do not leave the site whilst your vehicle is parked in the car park”, and Southgate Park customers only. Do not leave the site whilst your vehicle is parked in the car park”. The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice PCN to the appellant due to leaving their vehicle in Southgate Park car park without payment for parking and occupants left Southgate Park Premises. As the appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, I will address each in turn.

The appellant has declined to name the driver, however, within their appeal to POPLA the appellant has stated “The PCN shows still photos of me parking”. Due to this it is evident the appellant was the driver on the day and I will be assessing their liability for the PCN. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land.

In relation to signage, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site.

Upon review, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the amount of parking charge to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park their vehicle. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it.

There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. The operator has provided a series of images of the appellant’s vehicle at the site on the day. Upon review, I can see the appellant parked their vehicle in close proximity to a sign. I can then see the appellant leaving the site on foot, whilst doing do I can see the appellant walk past another sign.

Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied the appellant did breach the terms and conditions. It is the duty of the appellant to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they left the site, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.



MET Parking has also sent a letter advising:

"We have been notified that your appeal was refused by POPLA we therefore kindly request you to pay the outstanding payment of £100 within 28 days. Should this sum remain outstanding after this time we may commence recovery proceedings via debt collection agency or the courts without further recourse to you which may result in you having to pay additional costs associated with this recovery." [Try reading that without taking a pause or breath! MET parking clearly haven't understood the use of commas or full stops!]

It seems POPLA have taken certain statements written in the first person e.g. "The PCN shows still photos of me parking" as one of the deciding factors in their assessment of the case. In hindsight, clearly the word "allegedly" should have been pre fixed in the statement.

I've read that POPLA's decision is not final and that one still has the option to disregard any further correspondence from MET Parking Services. Is this true? Or is the only option now to pay the fine?

Thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 17:20
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



WHat comments did you add? You were told to add them, when it came to it!

Damn
Didnt realised you had cocked up your appeal so obviously
You identified the driver after told you REPEATEDLY not to do so.
As in, we spent an entire PAGE telling you!

GAH!

No, it woudl nto have helped. "me parking" is you performing the act oof parking, which can only be done by the driver. Why "me"? WHy not "shows pictures of the driver leabving the car?" Why use ANY personal pronoun at all?

Whata waste of time. Ah well, you cost them £30.

MET dont do court
You have no choice now, other than paying, but to sit tight and come back if you get a LBA or claim form. Dont ignroe either of those, and dont ask what they are either. Research.
You know POPLA isnt binding on you, because you read it on POPLAs website. Its very clear there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 18:27
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



I posted a draft response on here Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 13:14, based purely on research of other successful cases out there. There was no subsequent feedback on here following my post and the clock was obviously ticking, so I assumed all was well and I was safe to send - but clearly not.

If I sit back and wait for a potential LBA or claim form, I'm guessing the amount payable will be considerably more than £100, should it get to a stage whereby it's all at a loss as opposed to a win?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 08:01
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, but you had also been told REPEATEDLY to give NO HINTS whatsoever with the driver
SOrry if we presumed you had finally understood that!
Its your appeal, your responsibilty - we can only read so far. And clearly it wasnt purely based on successful POFA based POPLA appeals, because they all shared one thing in common - NOT identifying the driver.

MET dont do court, but just in case, if you move you MUST give them your new ADDRESS FOR SERVICE. Use that exact phrase.

A lost court claim, as you will know from reading other threads (come on, yo have to do this) is around £200. But youve then cost them MORE than that in time and turning up on the day, so its still a loss for them.

Dont throw anything away. File it and wait.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Fri, 28 Aug 2020 - 15:38
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Hi all

Over 2 years since the date of notice of the MET fine, the attached letter has been received from DRP.

Any advice on what to do next when dealing with this company would be much appreciated.

Kind regards

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Fri, 28 Aug 2020 - 21:33
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Ignore but file away. Debt collectors are completely powerless. Come back if you get a letter before claim or a claim form.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Sat, 29 Aug 2020 - 10:46
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Many thanks Sheffield_Dave, much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 20:21
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Thread revival here, but a letter has been received from Debt Recovery Plus "Terminal Contact", "pre-legal action warning".

I attach all pages of the correspondence received.

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image


Taking into consideration this case and its history, notably the regretful and school boy error of inadvertently using the word "me" in relation to the driver, during the POPLA appeal and its subsequent rejection, some 2 years on from POPLA's rejection and 3 years on since the alleged contravention, do I have any options now, other than to cough up and pay this fine? (despite it being totally unjustified and with so much media attention in recent years, with this specific Southgate Stansted car park and MET parking).

Is it a case where it will inevitably end up in court and I'll end up paying the fine, plus extra and lose out either way? In which case, do I just accept defeat and pay?

We've just had a newborn, so the stress and thought of putting a case together and taking time to attend a court case is just not feasible. That said, in all honesty, I can't afford to pay this ridiculous charge neither, nor any subsequent costs, should it end up with legal action.

I'd really appreciate any advice from here on what to do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 20:56
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



They are debt collectors: they have no powers, especially no powers to start legal action. Their entire business model is to send you scary and intentionally misleading letters to cause you to panic. The letter has had the desired effect!

Continue to ignore anything from a debt collector.

Don't ignore anything from real solicitors claiming to be instructed by the parking company entitled "letter before claim" or similar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 21:10
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Wait and see what happens, they are trying to frighten you into paying. If it goes go court then they will get nothing.

The next in the letter sequence would be a letter before claim. Suggest you wait for that. You could always pay then if you want to
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 10:21
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Thanks ostell and SheffieldDave.

So am I just delaying the inevitable here by not paying now, I.e. will I have to pay one way or another, or could it be that these threats may never even make it to a letter before claim and subsequent court action?

If so, am I right in thinking I could endure another 3 years of such threats (total years they can chase is up to 6 years I believe)?

Is there any way of challenging if it comes to receiving a letter before claim?


I’d be in denial to say the letter didn’t have its desired effect of panic on the recipient; I mean have you seen the state of that mug on that mugshot?? Ghastly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 10:37
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



I think the wording in this latest DRP barrage is outrageous.

'If you would like our client to take legal action against you...' - oh, yes please! laugh.gif

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 10:37


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
Sheffield Dave
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 12:28
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



You have basically 3 choices.

1) Pay up now, even though you don't owe them any money. This will likely stop them sending hassling letters (although PPCs are so incompetent that this isn't guaranteed).
2) Only pay up if you receive a Letter Before Claim from MET's solicitors. This may never happen, so there is a good chance you will never have to pay up or defend yourself. It will mean, in the meantime, that you get utterly impotent letters from time to time from DRP and similar, which are completely ignorable.
3) Wait for them to raise a claim and defend yourself in court. Again, there's a good chance this will never happen. if it does and you lose, you'll be about £250 out of pocket.

There is absolutely no benefit of choosing (1) over (2) except that you don't get a silly A4 letter once a year or so. If you choose (2) over (1), at best you will never have to pay anything, at worse you will have to pay later what you are proposing to pay now, so you're losing out on bank interest and/or the convenience of having an extra £160 in your bank account during that time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 19:14
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Thanks for all the helpful responses and reassurance, I’m grateful.

Will post back on here as an when necessary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Mon, 21 Aug 2023 - 22:00
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Update on this case, as some predicted… now in receipt of a letter from dcb legal (civil & commercial litigation solicitors). Titled “Letter of Claim”.

Please see photos via the links:

https://ibb.co/52Nk4vh
https://ibb.co/cc6C6kJ


What are the options if any? really can’t afford to be losing £160. Is there any way out of this now? When you google the car park in concern, it has so much publicity and outcry on others being stung due to the same ridiculous and unfair practices. Surely a judge would be able to see this too?

Thanks in advance for help and advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:42
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here