MET PARKING SERVICES DIDNT SEE SIGNS Options

[Wheels]

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 £100 or £50 if paid within 14 days, the usual. What are the chances?

Wheels

This post has been edited by Wheels: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 09:58

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

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

[Wheels]

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

[kommando]

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.

[ostell]

If you look at the requirements of POFA , 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

[Wheels]

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. 🙏

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

This post has been edited by Wheels: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 12:02

[ostell]

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

[Wheels]

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?

[nosferatu1001]

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

[Wheels]

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

I wouldn’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?

[SchoolRunMum]

This bit makes no sense:

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:

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.

[Wheels]

This bit makes no sense:

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:

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

This post has been edited by Wheels: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:57

[ostell]

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

[nosferatu1001]

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

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.

[Wheels]

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

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

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

Thank you Ostell,

W

This post has been edited by Wheels: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:56

[nosferatu1001]

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.

[Wheels]

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.

[nosferatu1001]

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.

[Wheels]

Thank you all, I will do now.

[nosferatu1001]

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.

[Wheels]

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!

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. 🙂