PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MET parking BP Stansted SF Connect, Parking charge
bertie2018
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 13:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



Hello there,

I hope you can advise me on how best to reply to this Notice to registered keeper.

It was issued on 19th October and served today, so it is within 14 days.

The driver did not see any terms and conditions entering the parking area and especially "signs in prominent places" as it was by night.

What are the best grounds to appeal as the keeper of the car?

Thanks




This post has been edited by bertie2018: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 09:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 13:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 13:59
Post #2


Member


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



Edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver....." etc.

Then send this to them:

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 give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) 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, or you debt collectors, 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 08:34
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



Great, many thanks. I shall try this. Fingers crossed!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 22:05
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



I received the reply from MET, please find below. What should I write to POPLA as an appeal?

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge notice. After careful consideration we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These include that parking is for customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum permitted stay in this area of 30 minutes. You have acknowledged that your vehicle remained on site for longer than the maximum permitted stay therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
Please note that we believe we may process the data as it is necessary for pursuing our legitimate interests in seeking payment of the outstanding charge notice revenue due to us.
This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:
1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days of today’s date. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will revert to £100.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: 00000000 Please note that POPLA will consider the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA’s decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.
3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
MET Parking Services Ltd
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 22:34
Post #5


Member


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



So you appeal to POPLA with the POFA failure high on the list. Look around the forum for samples of POPLA appeals.

Post on here for critique before you send

This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 22:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 15:43
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



POPLA Ref ...................
Met Parking Services Parking PCN no .......................

A notice to keeper was issued on .......... and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on........ for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at BP Stansted SF Connect. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
2) Airport Act 1986
3) Amount demanded is a penalty
4) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
6) Misleading and unclear signage
7) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

1) The NTK wording does not comply with requirement set out in paragraph 9(2)(f) of the POFA act and cannot hold the keeper liable. The Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule 4 (in particular paragraph 9). There is no evidence that Met Parking Services have complied with POFA.

2) Airport byelaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.

Airport Act 1986
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.

Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

3) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

4) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

5) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

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. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 4 above.

6) The alleged contravention, according to Met Parking Services, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions that are displayed on signs in prominent places'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. The signage is not illuminated and looking at the entrance sign, using mapping software, it is also on the left, high up above roof level and not readable by a driver.

7) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Met Parking Services any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Met Parking Services lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Met Parking Services to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Met Parking Services is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Met Parking Services to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Met Parking Services to prove otherwise so I require that Met Parking Services produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Met Parking Services and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Met Parking Services can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

This post has been edited by bertie2018: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 20:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 15:52
Post #7


Member


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



i'd say that #4 should be amalgamated with #1. Isolate the 'furthermore' sentence because an out of time served NTK is vital info for POPLA to read.

QUOTE
4) If Met Parking Services want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and Met Parking Services have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that Met Parking Services have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 2nd September 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 21 days later on 23rd September 2016.

The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

Then you need to add the fact that the NTK wording doesn't comply with para 9 of Schedule 4 and omits the mandatory warning in 9(2)f, about keeper liability after 29 days from service.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 15:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 22:49
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



I amalgamated as suggested thanks. So old #4 is now merged with #1. I actually misread completely the wording of the template and the 14 days period does not apply to this PCN

Could you please clarify where "the NTK wording doesn't comply with para 9 (etc) goes? In which section?

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 15:52) *
i'd say that #4 should be amalgamated with #1. Isolate the 'furthermore' sentence because an out of time served NTK is vital info for POPLA to read.

QUOTE
4) If Met Parking Services want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and Met Parking Services have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that Met Parking Services have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 2nd September 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 21 days later on 23rd September 2016.

The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

Then you need to add the fact that the NTK wording doesn't comply with para 9 of Schedule 4 and omits the mandatory warning in 9(2)f, about keeper liability after 29 days from service.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 22:52
Post #9


Member


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



It goes into your amalgamated FIRST point where you talk about the PCN not being POFA compliant. And you quote 9(2)f - no need for m to link it for you, easy to find.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 23:30
Post #10


Member


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



This was not for a breach at the airport, it was for an alleged breach at the BP station on the approaches to the airport so get rid of any mention of airport byelaws.

Where do they say "attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws" ? They are not.

There is no requirement to issue a notice to driver to invoke keeper liability

Where does the NTK say "breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure" ? Nothing at all to do with this or byelaws

Why are you going on about not stopping zones? The alleged contravention was for exceeding the max time.

THe black boxes with the VRM are the infrared images taken by the ANPR camera and added to the normal image. No photoshop trickery.

You should be saying that they failed to comply with 9 (2) (f) of the act and can't hold you, the keeper, liable.

If you can find other non compliances then add them in.

The signage is not illuminated and looking at the entrance sign, using mapping software, it is also on the left, high up above roof level and not readable by a driver.

Perhaps you could rewrite? You seem to have picked up paragraphs from assorted POPLA appeals and added them in without understanding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 16:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



I must admit I am indeed not understanding all of this... and would want to avoid to write wrong things. Having had a look at other appeals they seem all quite long and complicated... Would you be able to point me to a simpler appeal I could use as a template?

QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 23:30) *
This was not for a breach at the airport, it was for an alleged breach at the BP station on the approaches to the airport so get rid of any mention of airport byelaws.

Where do they say "attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws" ? They are not.

There is no requirement to issue a notice to driver to invoke keeper liability

Where does the NTK say "breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure" ? Nothing at all to do with this or byelaws

Why are you going on about not stopping zones? The alleged contravention was for exceeding the max time.

THe black boxes with the VRM are the infrared images taken by the ANPR camera and added to the normal image. No photoshop trickery.

You should be saying that they failed to comply with 9 (2) (f) of the act and can't hold you, the keeper, liable.

If you can find other non compliances then add them in.

The signage is not illuminated and looking at the entrance sign, using mapping software, it is also on the left, high up above roof level and not readable by a driver.

Perhaps you could rewrite? You seem to have picked up paragraphs from assorted POPLA appeals and added them in without understanding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 16:38
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



Following your advice, I started getting where I was going wrong and I edited and updated the draft.

I left only 7 points and would be grateful for advise.

Point 1 seems crucial to be spot on, any thought if this is now ready to go to POPLA?
Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 21:27
Post #13


Member


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



If you want a POPLA example to suit a MET Parking POPLA no keeper liability Stansted case, why not Google those words & copy a 2018 version from here or MSE?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 09:21
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



I have done that and am not able to find absimpler version of what I am writing.

Does it look ready to go?

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 21:27) *
If you want a POPLA example to suit a MET Parking POPLA no keeper liability Stansted case, why not Google those words & copy a 2018 version from here or MSE?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:09
Post #15


Member


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



Only once you have quoted 9(2)f of the POFA.

Why not search MET Stansted POPLA 9(2)f in Google, if you are struggling to understand what i mean by this vital point? It's all about the keywords in the search you do...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:04
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



I amended as follows:

1) Met Parking Services have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place. The Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that Met Parking Services have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. The NTK wording does not comply with requirement set out in paragraph 9(2)(f) of the act and cannot hold the keeper liable.

Furthermore, the BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:09) *
Only once you have quoted 9(2)f of the POFA.

Why not search MET Stansted POPLA 9(2)f in Google, if you are struggling to understand what i mean by this vital point? It's all about the keywords in the search you do...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:31
Post #17


Member


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



I'd leave it at the first bit - 9(2)f is all you need - and remove this:

QUOTE
Furthermore, the BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:34
Post #18


Member


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



1) There is no requirement to deliver a notice to driver before a Notice to Keeper is issued. What's POPLA doing in there? Do you not mean POFA ? It's not a BPA code requirement, it's the law ie POFA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bertie2018
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 11:56
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
From: London
Member No.: 99,499



Thanks to both SchoolRunMum and Ostell for the advise. It helped me rewriting again point 1 as follows and I dropped the confusing line. It look better, what do you reckon?

1) The NTK wording does not comply with requirement set out in paragraph 9(2)(f) of the POFA act and cannot hold the keeper liable. The Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). There is no evidence that Met Parking Services have complied with POFA.

This post has been edited by bertie2018: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 20:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:04
Post #20


Member


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



I say again: there is no requirement in POFA to deliver a parking charge notice to the driver before a NTK
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:16
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

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