PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MET parking Brocklebank Retail Popla, Need help with comment, please.
Cesur
post Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 10:56
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 8 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,368



Hi,

I need to appeal to POPLA about my private parking charge issued by MET Parking services. A similar case was discussed here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...20&start=20

At the moment I am collating evidence in the light of the guidance here: https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla/

My first informal appeal was around the driver assumed that there are two separate car parks and he spent different times in each one. I've provided the receipts from two different stores located in two different car parks.

Question 1. If I include in my appeal the statement that the driver left the car park and came back in the same day at two different times but ANPR failed to detect. I will provide evidence of spending time outside the premises and a reason to return and evidence by returning a few items to stores.

Question 2. Is the attached NTK is POFA compliant?

I am attaching the NTK and other correspondence here.

Could you please help me with this matter?


NTK Front:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SXiGx8ld9p...iew?usp=sharing
NTK Back:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c4mx4uzHy9...iew?usp=sharing
Appeal Response https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U7DN79hRfU...iew?usp=sharing
Sign at the entrance which is located very high and easy to miss: http://bit.ly/2Omv9N9

Thanks

This post has been edited by Cesur: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 - 09:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 21)
Cesur
post Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 18:59
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 8 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,368



Thanks for the heads up @The Rookie. I've corrected it.

And here is my most up to date draft. Assuming I can post this until 11:59 pm?


Please see the amended part in bold.

Re: The vehicle left the car park and returned later.
MET: The photographic evidence supplied in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates that the vehicle was observed entering the car park at 13:47 and leaving at 17:48.
POPLA is an evidence-based service. I provided proof of where the driver went with the car in between. MET have shown nothing to refute that no evidence of searching their images and data for other captures of the VRN that day at all. In the past, POPLA accepted an appeal based on a double entrance while the operator couldn’t provide evidence of a single stay.
Re:No evidence of landowner authority/ no authority to issue charge notices to first offenders.
MET: We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
MET have something to hide. Beavis case is not relevant here, full contract needs to be provided to show boundaries of the land and conditions when the operator can issue charges and where or send warning etc. Still no proof of well-defined landowner authority nor FULL compliance with BPA CoP.
Authority Agreement provided by MET only shows some text and Savills logo which you can easily find from web. There is no indication to suggest this is part of the contract provided rather looks like something they put together to defend against appeals. Their wording “McDonald’s” in their evidence pack also shows their evidence doesn’t reflect the truth.
MET agreed my planning permission evidence. By the PP, in Brocklebank retail park car park, MET don’t have the right to issue parking tickets to the first time offending genuine customers. As MET redacted details from the contract and authority statement looks to be made up this was highly likely to be hidden from POPLA.
Re: Failure to comply with the ICO Code of Practice.
MET: we refer the assessor to Section E of our evidence pack
As can be seen from the evidence provided by MET signage is not compliant with the ICO CoP. They are small and very high that can’t be seen easily.



This post has been edited by Cesur: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 19:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Advertisement
post Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 18:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Cesur
post Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 22:39
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 8 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,368



Final comments submitted:

Re: The vehicle left the car park and returned later.
MET:The photographic evidence supplied in Section E…
POPLA is an evidence-based service. I provided proof of where the driver drove the car and did shopping in between. MET provided no evidence of searching their images and data for other captures of the VRN that day at all. In the past, POPLA accepted appeals based on a double entrance while the operator couldn’t provide evidence of a single stay. ANPR flaws are common.
Re:No evidence of landowner authority/ no authority to issue charge notices to first offenders.
MET: We have included a copy of our contract.
Authority Agreement provided by MET only shows nothing except some text and Savills logo which you can easily find from web. Considering the amount of information (20 pages!) redacted from the original contract it makes a reasonable person think that based on what could this authority agreement assumed to be part of the contract? It rather looks like a template they put together to defend themselves in POPLA appeals. Their wording “McDonald’s” in their evidence pack also shows their evidence is not reliable as they put irrelevant info.
MET must have something to hide. Beavis case is not relevant here, full contract to be provided to show boundaries of the land, conditions when the operator can issue charges and where. Still no proof of well-defined landowner authority nor FULL compliance with BPA CoP.
MET avoided to comment about planning permission. By the PP, in Brocklebank retail park car park, MET don’t have the right to issue parking tickets to the first time offending genuine customers -although driver didn’t in this case. As MET redacted details from the contract this was highly likely to be hidden from POPLA.
Re: Failure to comply with the ICO Code of Practice.
MET: we refer the assessor to Section E…
As can be seen from the evidence provided by MET signage is not compliant with the ICO CoP. They are small and very high that can’t be seen easily.
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: Sunday, 8th December 2019 - 02:44
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.