PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MET parking services - parking duration above maximum period
cetico
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 16:42
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



hello, the NtK was received 6 days after the contravention date and the letter seems to comply with the requirements. The Achiles heel for these guys seem to be in relation to the signage as I was at this retail park some time ago and the signs are small and there does not seem to be enough of them. So just wanted to check the following steps would be a logical plan:
1. lodge appeal with MET parking. Any preference in terms of doing it online or by post ? The reason I ask is because I have read mixed opinions in other posts.
2. in case the appeal is rejected (very likely based on other peoples experiences) then submit a letter asking for POPLA code
3. letter of appeal to POPLA basically focusing on the signage not being compliant. Will use an existing topic and post the draft here.
Would like to know your thoughts in relation to the above plan. Please let me know in case you need additional information.
Thanks a lot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 16:42
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 17:48
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Updated with other relevant points. I cannot think of any others but open to suggestions obviously. Appreciate your help! Thanks

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and would like to appeal the above parking charge from MET Parking Services (“the operator”) on the following grounds:

1. The evidence produced by the operator does not show that the car was parked inside any of the two delimited parking areas during the alleged ‘length of stay’

The operator has added to the ‘Notice to the registered keeper’ letter two photos of the car: one entering and another one exiting the car park (photos are copied below). The operator also alleges that the car was parked for 203 minutes (‘length of stay’ as it appears in the Notice to Keeper).

For this appeal, I put the operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how long it was parked for.

I would like to note the following points:

· the images from the ANPR equipment show the car at an unidentified point that may be Brocklebank Road or Bugsby’s Way as the double yellow lines are unremarkable and there are no other visible signs to properly identify where the car was;

· even if the operator unequivocally proved that the car was on Brocklebank Road, this road is between two clearly distinct and separate car parks as demonstrated in the next section

2. A reasonable person may easily conclude that there are two separate car parks, for which two parking periods are allowed

The following link is from the Royal Borough of Greenwich, which shows an image of two separate car parking areas, separated by Bugsby’s Way.

https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/2002...d_parking_zones

Once again, I put the operator to strict proof of (i) where the car was parked and (ii) that it did not move between the two car parks. It is reasonable to assume that a car parked in two separate car parks would trigger two separate parking events which the operator is trying to characterize as if they were one car park.

Even if the operator alleged that these two areas belong to the same retail park, both the Greenwich Map (when zoomed in on the store names) and the Google Street View map (link and photo copied below) show these are two car parks, with ‘give way’ markings and a road between them.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brockleba...#33;4d0.0227813

Therefore the photos produced by the operator do not show which car park the car went into and when and if it then moved between the two as the driver and/or occupants of the car may have shopped at multiple stores served by the two car parks (e.g. Mothercare and Aldi on one side, Costa and Primark on the other) as shown in the above map extracted from the London Borough of Greenwich website.

Given that there are very large retailers on each side, the driver could easily have spent approximately one hour and forty minutes on each side, which would be well below (close to half of) the allowed maximum stay of 180 minutes.

3. There is no evidence that the parking signs are visible from the angle of the driver’s perspective

In the response to my appeal to the operator, they allege that they are “confident that there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists”.

I put the operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and to show how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

How much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

The written authorisation must also set out:

* the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

* any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

* any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

* who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

* the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

5. Reliability of the ANPR system

I also ask the operator to provide evidence that the ANPR system is reliable and in good working order. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is properly maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.

I also ask the operator to provide evidence that the processes used to manage the ANPR system have been properly audited by the BPA compliance team or agents.

Based on the above points, I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:08
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



This is at POPLA stage. I am posting the following reply after having reviewed the evidence provided by MET. Could anyone please take a look and let me know if any suggestions or comments. Thanks a lot!

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

In response to the evidence provided by the Operator, I would like to reiterate that, as per Sections 3 and 4 of my original appeal, I had already put the Operator to strict proof of:

a. where the car was parked and to show how their signs appeared from the angle of the driver’s perspective;

b. compliance with Paragraph 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, in particular, in relation to the definition of land on which they may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.

The following argumentation explains that the Operator has not provided the required evidence and as a result has failed to demonstrate compliance with the relevant sections of the BPA Code of Practice.

a) Non-compliance with Paragraph 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice

As per Section 3 of my appeal, I had put the Operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and to show how the signs appeared from the angle of the driver’s perspective.

The operator did not provide any evidence of where the car was parked.

Regarding the signs, the operator stated in their evidence pack (see ‘Case Summary’ section) that there are 28 signs located at the site. In addition, the Operator provided evidence of the location of these signs (see ‘Site Plan’ in section E) in an aerial plan photo copied below. The numbers in light blue depict the position of each one of the 28 signs located at the site.



I have highlighted two areas (see red rectangles), where there is absolutely no signage as these areas clearly have no numbers. In these areas there are approximately 65 parking spaces in total (approx. 25 on the left and approx. 40 on the right). It is reasonable to assume that these are the most coveted/popular parking spots in the site given their proximity to the shops, which occupy the areas above the red rectangles in the photo. The date of the alleged contravention was the dd-mm yyyy, which was a xxx. Given that weekdays are not as busy as weekends, it is more likely than not that the driver used one of these parking spaces during the alleged stay. It is important to note once again that no evidence of where the car was parked was provided by the Operator, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the car could have been parked in one of these areas with absolutely no parking signs.

Paragraph 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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.”

As per the evidence provided by the Operator, there are absolutely no signs on the two areas highlighted by the red rectangles. It is more likely than not that the driver used one of those parking spaces and therefore was not given the chance to read the signs at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle.

I would also like to note that in the evidence pack the Operator makes reference to me as the driver (e.g. “he parked twice” and “he remained there”) however there has been absolutely no admission of who was driving the vehicle and my appeal is as the keeper of the vehicle.

B) Non-compliance with Paragraph 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice

As per Section 4 of my appeal, I had put the Operator to strict proof of full compliance with Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice: ‘Written authorization of the land owner’.

The evidence provided by the Operator does not meet the requirements set out in Paragraph 7.3, item (a) of the BPA Code of Practice. This item, in particular, states that “The written authorisation must also set out the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.”

The ‘Call off order’ provided as evidence by the Operator does not clearly define the boundaries of the land. The section with the ‘Property details’ only provides a generic address as follows:

Brocklebank Retail Park

Off Bugsby’s Way

Greenwich

London, SE7 7SE

Please note that the above address does not contain enough information to define the boundaries of the land. It is important to note that other sections in the ‘Property Details’ section have been redacted, therefore it is not possible to establish if they would have provided additional and/or specific information to clearly define the land on which the Operator is authorized to issue parking charges.

Therefore the Operator did not provide evidence that the requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice were met.

One final point to note regarding the ‘Landowner Authority’ section in the evidence provided by the Operator: the last paragraph, in bold, states that “This is also evidenced by the fact that McDonald’s permitted MET (…)”. This is completely out of context with the PCN being appealed against given that there is no McDonald’s in the area. I strongly suspect that the Operator has collated evidence from a completely different case/PCN.

Based on the above points, the Operator failed to provide enough evidence to meet the requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice and therefore I ask that the parking charge be dismissed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 15:34
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Popla appeal stage - 3 weeks ago I have replied with comments on evidence submitted by the Operator. Any ideas on how long it normally takes to get a decision based on the more experienced members please? Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 16:00
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Login to the POPLA portal and see what the current position is.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 16:30
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



In the 'Track appeal' section it says that it is 'in progress' and there is no position/date as far as I know. Please let me know if I am missing something. Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 17:17
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



You will just have to wait until they adjudicate on the matter. It can often take a month or more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:55
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



I have finally got the decision and it was unsuccessful. In the evidence provided by the Operator I had noted two areas (the ones closest to the shops by the way) which do not have any parking signs. One of the items I had appealed on was paragraph 18.3 'specific parking signage' as I understood that the Operator did not comply with this section as shown in their own evidence pack. To my surprise, the POPLA assessor mentioned that "it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions". Basically in my appeal I had put the Operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and they only provided the entrance and exit ANPR photos. Given that these areas closest to the shops are the most popular ones and the contravention was on a weekday it is more likely than not that the driver has used one of the parking areas with no signs. Any thoughts in terms of taking this to court? At the point where you get the court notice I guess it is too late to decide to pay the ticket? Appreciate your insights. Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 12:10
Post #28


Member


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



Well , YOU cant take it to court - youre the defendant in this matter not the claimant!

What comments did you provide on their evidence pack/ You had 7 days.

If you get a claim form you can try to negotiate, but bear in mind theyve paid £25 to file the claim at that point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 12:36
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



nosferatu, apologies for not being clear "...in terms of them taking this to court". I saw somewhere some stats with the most litigious companies and MET did not seem to be part of that list.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 12:42
Post #30


Member


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



MET has been taking some claims to court, frmo memory. Not many.

What comments did you make?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 16:39
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



My comments were as follows:
Paragraph 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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.”

As per the evidence provided by the Operator, there are absolutely no signs on the two areas highlighted by the red rectangles. It is more likely than not that the driver used one of those parking spaces and therefore was not given the chance to read the signs at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 16:40
Post #32


Member


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



Thats all?
What about their contract - was it up to date and covered teh right area? Presuming you covered standing, as its on every appeal...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 16:43
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



This is only the main item (in my opinion). The full comments are in my post on the 11th Jan at 15h08.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 16:51
Post #34


Member


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



Your opinion is noted, but its not right
The main issue was the landownber authorisation does NOT show the boundary of the land
THis shoudl have won, had your comments not gone on for many thousands of characters and buried it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 16:55
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Of course, I never claimed to be an expert on the topic, and that is why I posted my comments here asking for feedback. Unfortunately no one mentioned anything so I would like to understand my options now. Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 07:54
Post #36


Member


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



Probably because, as youve seen, the forums stupidly busy, with only 3 or 4 regulars to deal with the 100+ posts a day

Every single thread on giving comments to POPLA has however said to keep them CONCISE - because the assessors get less than a half hour per case

Your optoins now are the same as befor e-= pay or see if they try court. Told you thye havent tried many, and this isnt the strongest one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cesur
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 11:30
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 8 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,368



removed.

This post has been edited by Cesur: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 12:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cesur
post Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 10:03
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 8 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,368



Hi @cetico,

Have you paid the parking charge, or have they taken you court?
I am in a similar situation, so want to understand MET's approach to this.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Sun, 17 Nov 2019 - 11:33
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Have paid it in the end.
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 - 16:02
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