Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ MET PARKING SERVICES DIDNT SEE SIGNS

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 16:08
Post #1420194

HI

Quite shocked to receive a parking ticket in the post. The driver parked for 77 mins, 17 over the one hour limit. I rang the restaurant and they said there are notices up. I understand that they need to monitor parking because they are near Heathrow, but I would have thought that the people genuinely eating and drinking should have been allowed to park and I thought that a disabled badge would have given at least 3 hours, the maximum on double yellows?

Also, the driver drove in and out several times before there was parking available, then parked in the disabled spot. Does the camera cancel each time you leave, or could it be judging the vehicle on the wrong entry & exit times?

It's camera evidence on entry and exit. It's ยฃ100 or ยฃ50 if paid within 14 days, the usual. What are the chances?

Wheels

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 16:13
Post #1420200

As you are completely aware, becasue your BB booklet clearly tells you this, you have NO special rights on private land. None.

Appeal to MET that 77 min falls within the two seperate grace periods their association REQUIRES them to observe, and they msut cancel the ticket.
Edit your post - i cant recall if MET meet POFA requiremnts, however its not a good idea to tell them who drove. Call them "the driver" as in "the driver parked at McDonalds"

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 16:21
Post #1420205

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 17:13) *
i cant recall if MET meet POFA requiremnts

No, they don't...

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 16:27
Post #1420209

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 17:13) *
As you are completely aware, becasue your BB booklet clearly tells you this, you have NO special rights on private land. None.

Appeal to MET that 77 min falls within the two seperate grace periods their association REQUIRES them to observe, and they msut cancel the ticket.
Edit your post - i cant recall if MET meet POFA requiremnts, however its not a good idea to tell them who drove. Call them "the driver" as in "the driver parked at McDonalds"


I have edited my post as you suggest, I am aware of BB booklet, but I didn't know McD's had car parks with time limits, I've never seen any where I live? Its not like its a patch of land used as a car park, it's a restaurant facility, I just expected that if one is eating there, the parking would be included.

W

Posted by: ostell Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 17:39
Post #1420237

You can still deduce who was driving in the first post.

The BB should show a disability and they should make extra allowances for that, but they can't see a BB with an ANPR camera.

So post up the Notice to Keeper that you received, suitably redacted but leave dates.

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 19:30
Post #1420274

Search for my Met Parking cases at Gatwick. All winners!

If this is Peggy Bedford, check whether the vehicle was actually parked in McD's. The boundary between them and the garage may be crucial to deciding if the vehicle was actually present!

Posted by: Wheels Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:00
Post #1420428

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 18:39) *
You can still deduce who was driving in the first post.

The BB should show a disability and they should make extra allowances for that, but they can't see a BB with an ANPR camera.

So post up the Notice to Keeper that you received, suitably redacted but leave dates.


Ok I will try that when I get home, I did it previously somehow, but I can't remember the site that generates the links, please may I have a reminder of the sites available? I have only iPad & iPhone to work with not computer, if that makes a difference?

I have edited post again & added question about going in & out several times.

Many thanks.

Wheels

Posted by: Wheels Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:23
Post #1420439

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 20:30) *
Search for my Met Parking cases at Gatwick. All winners!

If this is Peggy Bedford, check whether the vehicle was actually parked in McD's. The boundary between them and the garage may be crucial to deciding if the vehicle was actually present!



I will do, it is not PD, the vehicle was parked in the disabled space to the left nearest to the front door of McD's, I assume this is their car park? It is free parking for one hour I assume having got the ticket, but I have not been given a picture of their notices to see what the conditions are? The driver should have looked, but if they have only ever been to local McD's that don't have such set ups, probably didn't expect it to be so?

W

Posted by: Wheels Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 22:24
Post #1421411

In fact I can't find the notice, I remember where I put it, so I can't upload it? Something else to panic about! ๐Ÿ˜ฐ

Posted by: ostell Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 07:31
Post #1421438

Edit it post #8, the identity of the driver can be deduced. OK what was the date of the alleged infringement and what date was the letter received?

Posted by: Wheels Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 10:51
Post #1421778

QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 08:31) *
Edit it post #8, the identity of the driver can be deduced. OK what was the date of the alleged infringement and what date was the letter received?


Thank you, done.



I am hoping that this is the link to the parking notice? ํ พํดž

http://a66.tinypic.com/211l6ir.jpg

Please may I ask does anyone know that if a car goes in and out several times, does it tally this up, or could the first and last pics be used making it look longer?
Thanks
W

Posted by: cabbyman Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 11:01
Post #1421787

It's what we call a double dip.

Subject to confirmation by others, ask for METs log for that day. You should see the entry of in and out duplicated at different times.

Posted by: ostell Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 20:27
Post #1421959

So where is POFA 9 (2) (e), is there a period of parking, is the creditor identified?

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 07:48
Post #1422063

QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 08:31) *
Edit it post #8, the identity of the driver can be deduced. OK what was the date of the alleged infringement and what date was the letter received?


Sorry Ostell I just noticed the question, the date of incident was 20/09/18 and the letter is dated 25/09/18


Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 08:22
Post #1422077

What date was the letter actually *received*, not what date was the letter

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 12:30
Post #1422155

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 09:22) *
What date was the letter actually *received*, not what date was the letter


Iโ€™m sorry Iโ€™m not sure, it is addressed to my partner as RK who is furious and something else Iโ€™m trying to deal with, his wrath! Iโ€™ll try to find out, but it may result in a huge row unfortunately, but if itโ€™s important I will, he has a low tolerance threshold of such things. sad.gif

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 13:16
Post #1422166

Can you give a rough itme period?

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 18:00
Post #1422262

For the benefit of the regulars, in my experience of MET over 3-4 NtKs, they normally arrive well within the required period. I would also suggest that the evidence on this thread that was started on 27/9/18 confirms that it arrived in good time.

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 21:25
Post #1422349

Yes I did the post within 24 hrs of receiving the letter. I didn't think to check it that way. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 21:50
Post #1422360

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 12:01) *
It's what we call a double dip.

Subject to confirmation by others, ask for METs log for that day. You should see the entry of in and out duplicated at different times.


Should I request a copy of the log as part of my appeal, or before I appeal?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 08:33
Post #1422413

As part of.
Then they have less excuse not to hand it over.

Posted by: Wheels Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 11:02
Post #1422759

QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 21:27) *
So where is POFA 9 (2) (e), is there a period of parking, is the creditor identified?


It says on my notice maximum free stay is 60 mins. I'm not sure where I would find the creditor info? It says the vehicle entered the McDonalds car park, the rest is relating to MET?


http://a68.tinypic.com/4kwaap.jpg

Info on back of notice

Posted by: kommando Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 11:15
Post #1422764

QUOTE
I'm not sure where I would find the creditor info?


Is it on the NTK, ie 'The Creditor is XXXXXX' if not then the NTK is not POFA 2012 compliant.

Posted by: ostell Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 11:24
Post #1422771

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted, expecially paragraph 9 (2), this says all the statements that must be included. You do not have the invitation to pay, 9 (2) (e) only a bastardised version. There is no period of parking 9 (2) (a) only times when the car was moving in front of the camera and by definition it could not have been parked at that time, and you can mention the multiple ins and outs. Identifying the creditor 9 (2) (h), as they are agents acting for a principal they need to state the identity of the creditor. No date of sending 9 (2) (i), they could have decided they had a claim and then the letter hung about the office for a few days.

Here's a starter that could be used if the notice was out of time. Modify to suit your situation

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc



Posted by: Wheels Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:40
Post #1424143

Thank you for everyone's input, I have finally managed to combine info from here and MSE and wonder if I could have opinions on this appeal to MET, hoping I have not overlooked it? Thank you in advance of all comments. ๐Ÿ™

Re PCN number:

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. You have failed to comply with the requirements of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, section 9(2) which outlines all statements that must be included. There is no invitation to pay, [9(2)(e)] only an adulterated version. There is no period of parking [9(2)(a)] only times when the vehicle was moving in front of the camera and by definition it could not have been parked at that time, and the vehicle entered and exited many times before being able to park. There is no identification of the creditor [(92)(h)] you are the agents for a principle and not a creditor. There is no date or proof of sending [9(2)(i)] you could have posted your notice at any time.

Furthermore, 77 mins falls within the two separate grace periods that your association requires you to observe, especially given that the driver was disabled and would have required more than the average grace period and thus you must cancel the ticket.

I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I do not expect to hear from you again except to confirm that the ticket is cancelled and no further action will be taken on this matter and that my personal details have been removed from your records.

Should you choose not to cancel this ticket and since your PCN is a vague template, if you intend to take this further I require all photos taken, a clear image of the signage and an explanation of the allegation; as well as a log of all entries and exits on camera that day given that the driver drove in and out several times before a disabled parking bay became available.

Please note that if you do take this further I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP, appraising all parties of the debate where Parliament agreed: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''. Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and that 'we make it up most of the time' (BBC Watchdog).

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service.

Yours faithfully

Posted by: ostell Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:06
Post #1424162

AGHHHH I said here's a statement used if the NTK was out of time to use as a template for constructing your own appeal. Was the NTK out of time? If not that is completely irrelevant and you will have to pick another reason for the fail

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:41
Post #1424181

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 12:06) *
AGHHHH I said here's a statement used if the NTK was out of time to use as a template for constructing your own appeal. Was the NTK out of time? If not that is completely irrelevant and you will have to pick another reason for the fail


Ok, so if I delete that part, is the rest okay?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 13:09
Post #1424210

Or you could answer the quesiton about whether the NtK was out of time? If it is you can leave the point in.

Posted by: Wheels Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 14:25
Post #1424235

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 14:09) *
Or you could answer the quesiton about whether the NtK was out of time? If it is you can leave the point in.


I wouldnโ€™t wish to mislead, but having read so much & my head spinning I just thought if they have no proof of posting how can they tell one way or the other? My ability to actually compose something of my own is practically zero, my brain is mush at present, so I just copied and pasted various bits together in the hope it would do?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 19:20
Post #1424326

This bit makes no sense:

QUOTE
Furthermore, 77 mins falls within the two separate grace periods that your association requires you to observe, especially given that the driver was disabled and would have required more than the average grace period and thus you must cancel the ticket
.

should be something like:

QUOTE
Your ANPR images erroneously mismatch 'first in/last out' VRN capture data, to allege the car parked for 77 minutes, but it did not.

The driver drove in and out several times before there was parking available, then parked in the disabled space and displayed their blue badge, a copy of which is attached to this communication. Your ANPR system applies an arbitrary time limit to all vehicles, despite knowing there are disabled spaces and that a not insignificant percentage of passing trade will include people with blue badges who are entitled to a 'reasonable adjustment' of time, by law.

This is your legal duty as a service provider, and also remains the joint and several liability of your client, McDonalds. You have failed in your duty to consider the needs of the disabled population at large, and so the Restaurant have failed due to your illegal conduct and this represents indirect discrimination.

Cancel the charge immediately or I will involve the EHRC (re the discriminatory regime) and the Information Commissioner (re the ANPR system failure, which uses data you and the BPA know is flawed in cases where the driver drove in/out more than once).


Forget talking about the POFA if you haven't checked the NTK against the Act. The above, plus a copy of the BB might get it cancelled. But don't imply who the driver was, no writing extra stuff, as you'd have to use all bullets at POPLA stage if need be.


Posted by: Wheels Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 22:48
Post #1424389

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 20:20) *
This bit makes no sense:

QUOTE
Furthermore, 77 mins falls within the two separate grace periods that your association requires you to observe, especially given that the driver was disabled and would have required more than the average grace period and thus you must cancel the ticket
.

should be something like:

QUOTE
Your ANPR images erroneously mismatch 'first in/last out' VRN capture data, to allege the car parked for 77 minutes, but it did not.

The driver drove in and out several times before there was parking available, then parked in the disabled space and displayed their blue badge, a copy of which is attached to this communication. Your ANPR system applies an arbitrary time limit to all vehicles, despite knowing there are disabled spaces and that a not insignificant percentage of passing trade will include people with blue badges who are entitled to a 'reasonable adjustment' of time, by law.

This is your legal duty as a service provider, and also remains the joint and several liability of your client, McDonalds. You have failed in your duty to consider the needs of the disabled population at large, and so the Restaurant have failed due to your illegal conduct and this represents indirect discrimination.

Cancel the charge immediately or I will involve the EHRC (re the discriminatory regime) and the Information Commissioner (re the ANPR system failure, which uses data you and the BPA know is flawed in cases where the driver drove in/out more than once).


Forget talking about the POFA if you haven't checked the NTK against the Act. The above, plus a copy of the BB might get it cancelled. But don't imply who the driver was, no writing extra stuff, as you'd have to use all bullets at POPLA stage if need be.



The grace period I got from post no 2.

Do you mean scrap everything I have said and just put what you said above?

W

Posted by: ostell Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 07:37
Post #1424425

There is no identity on the business side of a BB.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 07:37
Post #1424426

No it wont, because the BB holder can simply be an occupant of the vehicle!
Cars usually have more than one seat smile.gif

We just asked whether the NtK arrived in time or not. Can you recall roughly when it arrived? It would give us an indicaiton of whether it is likely to have arrived iwthin 14 days or otherwise.
They can rely on it being sent first class and therefore being presumed delivered 2 working days later. They do not need proof of posting.

What SRM means is that 77 minutes by itself is NOT the overstay
If it is a ONE HOUR parking then 17 minutes is the "overstay" and the BPA mandates TWO grace periods, one of at least 10 minutes, and another (at the start of parking) that they dont define, but it would be iutterly reaonsable to conclude would be at least 10 minutes. So you point out that 60 +10 + 10 = 80, which is more than the 77 minutes total time theyre claiming the vehicle was there for, continuously.

You lead with teh point about Blue Badge and multiple visits, becase that is a much stronger argument to make.

Posted by: Wheels Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 10:06
Post #1424479

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 08:37) *
No it wont, because the BB holder can simply be an occupant of the vehicle!
Cars usually have more than one seat smile.gif

We just asked whether the NtK arrived in time or not. Can you recall roughly when it arrived? It would give us an indicaiton of whether it is likely to have arrived iwthin 14 days or otherwise.
They can rely on it being sent first class and therefore being presumed delivered 2 working days later. They do not need proof of posting.

What SRM means is that 77 minutes by itself is NOT the overstay
If it is a ONE HOUR parking then 17 minutes is the "overstay" and the BPA mandates TWO grace periods, one of at least 10 minutes, and another (at the start of parking) that they dont define, but it would be iutterly reaonsable to conclude would be at least 10 minutes. So you point out that 60 +10 + 10 = 80, which is more than the 77 minutes total time theyre claiming the vehicle was there for, continuously.

You lead with teh point about Blue Badge and multiple visits, becase that is a much stronger argument to make.


Thank you Nosferatu, NtK was received in time, I will do that, do I include the other points, or just use the BB and grace periods?

W


QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 08:37) *
There is no identity on the business side of a BB.

Thank you Ostell,

W

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 10:11
Post #1424480

In a first appela to a PPC i would just use
BB
Grace periods

WERE there multiple movements around the site? Yes or No. We need to know *facts* as much as possible.

You state an occupant of the vehicle was a blue badge holder. Edit your post above - we do not want to know anything that hints at the identity of the driver.
No there is no public register. That would be a breach of the Data Proteciton Act.

Posted by: Wheels Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:54
Post #1424513

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:11) *
In a first appela to a PPC i would just use
BB
Grace periods

WERE there multiple movements around the site? Yes or No. We need to know *facts* as much as possible.

You state an occupant of the vehicle was a blue badge holder. Edit your post above - we do not want to know anything that hints at the identity of the driver.
No there is no public register. That would be a breach of the Data Proteciton Act.


There were multiple in and outs as there was no bay, especially disabled bay available. I will edit now.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 12:14
Post #1424523

Then you need to state exactly what SRM told you to - the version of events is far more credible igf you detail it NOW, and not at a later date.

Posted by: Wheels Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 12:19
Post #1424527

Thank you all, I will do now.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 12:29
Post #1424531

Give as much detail as possible - car parked here, then there, then there, all because the service provider failed to provide adequate provision for disabled parking.

Posted by: Wheels Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 16:31
Post #1424620

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 13:29) *
Give as much detail as possible - car parked here, then there, then there, all because the service provider failed to provide adequate provision for disabled parking.


I didn't think of that! rolleyes.gif

This is what I said:

I am challenging this parking charge because all occupants of the car were genuine McDonald's customers, the car passed in and out several times before there was an available disabled parking bay, thereby causing multiple entry and exit times which may have caused false parking times, and also your association BPA mandates at least 10 mins grace period at the beginning and end of parking, especially given there was a disabled person on board. As the ticket alleges that the car was parked for 77 mins, the 1 hour free parking plus the two grace periods equate to 80 mins, therefore may I respectfully request that you cancel this parking charge.

Not brilliant, but I was already taxing my brain trying not to give anything away whilst I typed, my multitasking abilities have long gone, I can only concentrate on one thing at a time, so typing was it. ๐Ÿ™‚

Posted by: cabbyman Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 17:38
Post #1424649

Many of you may wish to have a 'drive round' the roads surrounding this site.

https://goo.gl/maps/iRpAw6RSjvx

Now I realise which one it is, I understand why the OP was driving in and out numerous times trying to find a space. It is very, very popular with taxi drivers waiting for incoming flights at Heathrow. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to just drive in and out at times, let alone find a space. It's one of those places that justifies parking management but..........done properly!

I have been trying to get myself a ticket here for ages but keep failing miserably!

Posted by: Wheels Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 22:31
Post #1424990

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 18:38) *
Many of you may wish to have a 'drive round' the roads surrounding this site.

https://goo.gl/maps/iRpAw6RSjvx

Now I realise which one it is, I understand why the OP was driving in and out numerous times trying to find a space. It is very, very popular with taxi drivers waiting for incoming flights at Heathrow. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to just drive in and out at times, let alone find a space. It's one of those places that justifies parking management but..........done properly!

I have been trying to get myself a ticket here for ages but keep failing miserably!


Yes exactly, did you see the signs? When I rang the McDs to enquire they said it was signposted everywhere, even inside. None of the occupants noticed these signs.

I tried the link to see but it didn't work.

Posted by: Wheels Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 16:05
Post #1429578

QUOTE (Wheels @ Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 23:31) *
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 18:38) *
Many of you may wish to have a 'drive round' the roads surrounding this site.

https://goo.gl/maps/iRpAw6RSjvx

Now I realise which one it is, I understand why the OP was driving in and out numerous times trying to find a space. It is very, very popular with taxi drivers waiting for incoming flights at Heathrow. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to just drive in and out at times, let alone find a space. It's one of those places that justifies parking management but..........done properly!

I have been trying to get myself a ticket here for ages but keep failing miserably!


Yes exactly, did you see the signs? When I rang the McDs to enquire they said it was signposted everywhere, even inside. None of the occupants noticed these signs.

I tried the link to see but it didn't work.


I tried the link again and it worked, yes the car was parked in the disabled space directly behind (ie alongside) the blue car in the view that the link shows.

Iโ€™m awaiting a response to the appeal still, so no news yet.

W

Posted by: Wheels Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 17:45
Post #1432675

UPDATE

MET ACCEPTED MY APPEAL! YAY!

Ticket cancelled, nothing due. Thank you all for your help/input, very much appreciated.

Wheels ๐Ÿ˜ƒ

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 09:28
Post #1432778

Met cancel frequently, them and smart. Well done ๐Ÿ˜Š

Posted by: Wheels Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 11:55
Post #1433062

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 10:28) *
Met cancel frequently, them and smart. Well done ๐Ÿ˜Š


๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ™๐Ÿผ

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)