PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Met Parking Gatwick South - Again!
cabbyman
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:28
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I really must have a word with my drivers!

I have received the notice shown below:





The dates are OK, being within the 14 days required for service.
No mention, whatsoever, of PoFA or any attempt to pass liability to the RK. They are working on the assumption that RK is the driver.

I intend to follow, exactly, my previous thread which saw them collapse without a contest: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1307192

However, as I haven't been on here as much recently as I would like, may I ask if there have been any decisions, in the last 3 months or so, which have moved the goalposts at POPLA?

The fun begins again! tongue.gif

EDIT: Pics redacted fully.....I hope!

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:33


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:33
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,077
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



No, their bizarre refusal to use PoFA will see it cancelled. They may even cancel it before POPLA...


--------------------
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
cabbyman
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:40
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Oh! Shame! I was looking forward to some fun!

I'll leave it for a few days for other comments.

Thanks for your comment, Jlc. smile.gif


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:52
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Oops! I forgot about examples of the current crop of signs:







--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 19:33
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Bizarre! I still haven't had the result of my appeal to Met that was sent on 30th June. However, upon checking their website, although the '50% discount' is only offered for 14 days, it still shows only £50 'owing' more than a month after the event.

They must be losing money hand over fist on these extended discounts! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 21:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,401
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So sit on your hands for the 35 days !!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 15 Jul 2018 - 12:06
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Oh, I fully intend to. The ball is in their court. Their's is the next move.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 13:20
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Received a letter yesterday, undated, referring to my 'correspondence received on 2 July which has been forwarded to the relevant department.' I will post a scan of it later, for completeness.

'Are they going to beat the 35 day deadline to send me a POPLA code????' 'Will they accept the appeal and cut their losses?????' 'Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of........' 'A Quin Martin Production!!!' laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif tongue.gif


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:55
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,987
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No need to post a scan of it. We dont care. Its a useless bit of paper really!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 22:29
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



In order to help newbies and for the sake of completeness, it IS added hereto:



Interestingly, I went onto Met's website and clicked on the 'Online payment' tab and input the PCN details. It's happy to take my money, still only in the sum of £50! But, when I go 'back' from that, an 'appeal' button appears that was not there before I input the PCN details. When I click on the 'appeal' tab, it responds with an error:

'404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.'

I'm not for one moment casting any aspersions here so I wonder if they know that they have a glitch in their appeal system???? laugh.gif

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 22:31


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 13:59
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I have now received the following:







I intend to submit a standard POPLA appeal.

You will note that the rejection was 'typed' on 24th July, the same day the POPLA code was issued; posted second class on 26th July and received by me today, 28th July. Any ideas to capitalise on this please?


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 06:59
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,716
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
You will note that the rejection was 'typed' on 24th July, the same day the POPLA code was issued; posted second class on 26th July and received by me today, 28th July. Any ideas to capitalise on this please?

Not being provided with the full appeal window in which to get your appeal to POPLA? Minor issue, but you could give them a bit of mischief by asking them (MET) to extend the deadline (they can't!) or ask for a POPLA Code which, when you receive it, provides you with the full 28 days - require it by post only, which gives them a problem of getting the code to you with the full 28 days allowance still available. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 12:49
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I like mischief! A wonderful suggestion, Umkomaas.

How about:

Dear sirs

Ref xxxxxxx

I am in receipt of your unexpected rejection and POPLA code. However, the POPLA code was issued on 24th July; the rejection, containing the code, was posted on 26th July via second class Royal Mail and finally received by me on 28th July. By failing to a) post on the day the code was generated, and b) use first class post as the legally accepted method of service, you have deprived me of the full period of 28 days required to make my appeal to POPLA.

This failure will be included in my POPLA appeal. However, I am prepared to grant you some relief if you extend the deadline by the missing 4 days. Alternatively, I will accept postal service of a new POPLA code that will afford me the full 28 days to make my appeal. I expect to receive your response by xx/xx/xxxx, in order grant the relief that I have offered to you.

Love and kisses.


How long should I give them?

Should I word it differently?





--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 16:20
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,716
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



Looks ok to me. Give them 7 days. Require them to confirm their actions on your request in writing so you have proof of how they have dealt with it.

But don't go to sleep on developing your actual POPLA appeal - you've got plenty of time at the moment. laugh.gif

This post has been edited by Umkomaas: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 16:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 16:51
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I have amended the last line to read:

I expect to receive your response by post within 7 days, in order that I may grant the relief that I have offered to you.

It's in the post.

Thanks Umkomaas.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 17:14
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



First draft - any glaring errors, please?

Note the optional paragraph in the event that they fail to respond to the letter shown in post #13.

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice you issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

1) No landowner authority
2) No keeper liability
3) Lack of valid contract.
4) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines
5) No evidence of period parked
6) Lack of signage- unclear signage
7) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No landowner Authority:

I question MET’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park. As most McDonald’s 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.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that MET is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that MET are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post
is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“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.''

I put MET to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 1 hour in a car park.
I require MET to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
Additionally to the above, as recently as 10th July 2017, POPLA Assessor Alexandra Roby in POPLA adjudication 3581377030 gave the following decision:

While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. While I acknowledge the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park, they have not provided any evidence of the landowner authority. As such, I am unable to establish whether the operator has the authority to issue PCNs for this car park. Upon consideration of this evidence, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must allow this appeal.

2) No keeper Liability - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012. No 'Notice to Driver' was served whilst the car was stationary.
Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below the requirements for a 'Notice to Driver' as set out in Schedule 4 which clearly requires either:

- Under paras 7 & 8: a windscreen PCN (in person, issued on the car before it leaves the site) followed by a postal 'Notice to Keeper' served no sooner than 29 days later,

OR

- Under paragraph 9: a compliant postal 'Notice to Keeper' to be served within 14 days of the event.

Neither of these two mandatory routes were followed in this case. Paragraph 7 states:

7(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given—

(a) before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b) while the vehicle is stationary,

by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


No such Notice to Driver was served. Instead, a hybrid document the operator called a 'Parking Charge Notice' (PCN) was posted. This neither matched the mandatory requirements of paragraph 7 as a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was posted, not served whilst the vehicle was stationary) nor does it meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

The non-compliant wording of this PCN is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the PCN did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in an NTK which was not received.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the PCN, as a sham Notice to Keeper, did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK would have failed in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the PCN, as a sham Notice to Keeper, does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

Optional Para [This point can be further illustrated by Met’s own failure to ensure timely delivery of the POPLA code to enable this appeal. The code was generated on 24th July, posted by second class post on 26th July and finally received on 28th July. Given this history, I put Met to strict proof that the original PCN was SENT or GIVEN on 19th June.]

Consequently, MET has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If MET should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr. Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the PCN, masquerading as the NTK, and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr. Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

3) Lack of valid contract.
In order to form a contract, there must be offer, acceptance and consideration. A sign which states "no unauthorised parking" never offers parking to anyone that is "unauthorised". Without an offer of parking, there can be no parking contract, and without a parking contract no PCN can be issued for a contractual sum OR a breach of contract, whichever legal fiction the operator chooses to pretend the PCN is issued under.

4) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines:

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They do not clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite MET to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

5) No evidence of period parked.
The Parking Charge Notice clearly implies the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, MET are not able to definitively state the period of parking in order to refer to the document as a Parking Charge Notice. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods. These are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within. An alleged 11 minutes overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 1 hour 11 minutes.


6) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst manoeuvring into the car park from Ring Road North and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligible.
The BPA Code of Practice states that- “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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. “

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. I put MET to strict proof on this point. As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car park, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore, as stated, a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...the display of one or more notices which—

(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.
The wording is such as to forbid a driver from parking if he/she does not meet Met’s conditions. As such, it is incapable of forming a contract.
The core price term is hidden and certainly not prominent enough to be easily and immediately seen from the driving seat of a passing vehicle.

7) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

The MET evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they in fact offered a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences. i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require MET to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that MET produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require MET to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from Parking Eye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put MET to strict proof to the contrary.


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

Yours,



--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 20:36
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,401
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



There is no requirement in POFA to issue a notice to driver and therefore with no windscreen ticket the para 8 is not applicable, only para 9
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 06:34
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



The point I am making is that the piece of paper serves neither purpose.

It can't be a NtD because it wasn't served on the driver 'while the vehicle was stationary.'

It can't be a NtK because it fails to meet the requirements of paras 8 or 9.

It's a hybrid document that achieves the grand sum of zilch, under PoFA.

Does that make sense?


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
taximan1958
post Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 09:12
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 30 Jul 2018
Member No.: 99,141



Hi cabbyman,
I submitted my appeal to popla 2 weeks ago using your original appeal last year. with a couple of amendments.

today I have received a reply from POPLA as follows:-





Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.
An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxx
MET Parking Services have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.
Yours sincerely

POPLA Team


My original comments were posted on here under the name of RT62 , had to re register due to problems logging in.

Anyway .THANK YOU CABBYMAN for help regarding my post and also everyone who also helped.
and good luck with yours .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:23
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,937
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



POPLA appeal submitted today.

Dear Sirs,

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Met Parking issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

1) No landowner authority
2) No keeper liability
3) Lack of valid contract.
4) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines
5) No evidence of period parked
6) Lack of signage- unclear signage
7) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


1) No landowner Authority:

I question MET’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park. As most McDonald’s 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.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that MET is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that MET are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post
is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“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.''

I put MET to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 1 hour in a car park.
I require MET to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
Additionally to the above, as recently as 10th July 2017, POPLA Assessor Alexandra Roby in POPLA adjudication 3581377030 gave the following decision:

While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. While I acknowledge the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park, they have not provided any evidence of the landowner authority. As such, I am unable to establish whether the operator has the authority to issue PCNs for this car park. Upon consideration of this evidence, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must allow this appeal.

2) No keeper Liability - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012. No 'Notice to Driver' was served whilst the car was stationary.
Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below the requirements for a 'Notice to Driver' as set out in Schedule 4 which clearly requires either:

- Under paras 7 & 8: a windscreen PCN (in person, issued on the car before it leaves the site) followed by a postal 'Notice to Keeper' served no sooner than 29 days later,

OR

- Under paragraph 9: a compliant postal 'Notice to Keeper' to be served within 14 days of the event.

Neither of these two mandatory routes were followed in this case. Paragraph 7 states:

7(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(4)The notice must be given—

(a) before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b) while the vehicle is stationary,

by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


No such Notice to Driver was served. Instead, a hybrid document the operator called a 'Parking Charge Notice' (PCN) was posted. This neither matched the mandatory requirements of paragraph 7 as a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was posted, not served whilst the vehicle was stationary) nor does it meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

The non-compliant wording of this PCN is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the PCN did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in an NTK which was not received.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the PCN, as a sham Notice to Keeper, did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK would have failed in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the PCN, as a sham Notice to Keeper, does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.
This point can be further illustrated by Met’s own failure to ensure timely delivery of the POPLA code to enable this appeal. The code was generated on 24th July, posted by second class post on 26th July and finally received on 28th July. Given this history, I put Met to strict proof that the original PCN was SENT or GIVEN on 19th June.

Consequently, MET has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If MET should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr. Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in
The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the PCN, masquerading as the NTK, and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr. Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

3) Lack of valid contract.
In order to form a contract, there must be offer, acceptance and consideration. A sign which states "no unauthorised parking" never offers parking to anyone that is "unauthorised". Without an offer of parking, there can be no parking contract, and without a parking contract no PCN can be issued for a contractual sum OR a breach of contract, whichever legal fiction the operator chooses to pretend the PCN is issued under.

4) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines:

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They do not clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite MET to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

5) No evidence of period parked.
The Parking Charge Notice clearly implies the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, MET are not able to definitively state the period of parking in order to refer to the document as a Parking Charge Notice. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods. These are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within. An alleged 11 minutes overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for 1 hour 11 minutes.


6) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst manoeuvring into the car park from Ring Road North and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligible.
The BPA Code of Practice states that- “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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. “

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. I put MET to strict proof on this point. As well as a site map they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car park, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore, as stated, a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...the display of one or more notices which—

(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.
The wording is such as to forbid a driver from parking if he/she does not meet Met’s conditions. As such, it is incapable of forming a contract.
The core price term is hidden and certainly not prominent enough to be easily and immediately seen from the driving seat of a passing vehicle.

7) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

The MET evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they in fact offered a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences. i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require MET to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that MET produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require MET to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from Parking Eye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put MET to strict proof to the contrary.


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

Yours,



--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
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: Tuesday, 16th October 2018 - 04:40
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.