Evening all
A friend of mine received the following Parking Charge Notice through the post as a registered keeper. As far as I understand the vehicle was parked in one of the Chiltern Railway car parks for one day and its driver paid the full daily parking fee once they arrived to work. I have read a number of threads on this website and I understand that MET Parking Services are somewhat confused around byelaws, terms and conditions they are trying to enforce, and statutory legislation. What makes this case stand out is that they never use words "keeper's liability" or mention PoFA 2012 in the text of the notice as they did previously. The notice still refers to Byelaw 14 though. I know that statutory control makes this car park a "not relevant land" hence PoFA doesn't apply but I am trying to figure out what they are trying to achieve here as they suddenly call it Notice to Owner. Any ideas? My friend is also looking to draft an appeal to them and ask for a POPLA code but not sure whether to go strong on all the points identified in previous discussion or stick to a very basic template. Suggestions?
Many thanks

get friend to post in here
or it will become a 'three and fourpence we are going to a dance' thread
has friend read and digested the many byelaw threads on here ?

I wouldn't appeal to MET - they have no standing of their own IMO.

I would send them a form to fill in
summat like this
http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/PPC%20byelaw...pro%20forma.pdf
probably


with free proof of posting at the post office.

but if the friend hasn't got their head around these bylaw jobbies the form may puzzle them
I would avoid changing the form......

I would appeal and slowly drag it through POPLA just to get it nearer to being timed out of the six months for it to be even considered for enforcement under byelaws.

But truth be told it's not a byelaws PCN, I expect you've read this one and the comments from prjohnsonnn:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103752

So, if it were me I would just submit an appeal from the registered keeper, using some of the twists and turns exposed by prjohnsonnn and put MET to strict proof of the true construction of the charge because it is clearly not a byelaws penalty so ask them what it really is? (just to get a rubbish reply so they start digging their own hole). And ask for a POPLA code.

Notice to Owner is a stat term for under TMA2004, isnt it?
In which case they are misrepresenting their authority, by using stat terms to deliberately mislead the recipient

A complaint to the BPA is warranted?

Hi all
Thanks for your replies. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle being targeted by MET and using my friend's log in to respond.
Based on the suggestions I have drafted the following letter and wondered if it offered enough opportunities for MET Parking Services to incriminate themselves before I take it to POPLA.
Your opinions are appreciated.

I dispute your claim and challenge this Parking Charge Notice as a keeper of the vehicle; I will complain to the landowner as well as British Parking Association about the matter if this Parking Charge Notice is not cancelled.
Please confirm the purpose for which the vehicle keeper information was obtained from the DVLA and the date when it was obtained as it is an offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to unlawfully obtain such information.
Please provide evidence of the apparent breach of Byelaw 14 and confirm that a parking fee was not received.
Please confirm that MET Parking Services is indeed the actual creditor making this £100.00 parking charge demand as stated on the Parking Charge Notice.
If you reject this challenge or fail to address the issues that have been raised then, in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information and a POPLA Verification Number in your response so that I may immediately refer the matter to them.
If you fail to follow any of the procedures outlined in the BPA AOS Code of Practice or your legal requirements under the Data Protection Act and the Protection of Freedoms Act, or the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, then I will make a formal complaint to the DVLA Data Sharing Policy Group.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Many thanks

Would you like to refine this one to

Please confirm that MET Parking Services is indeed the actual creditor making this £100.00 parking charge demand as stated on the Parking Charge Notice. It is my understanding that for a Bylaw contravention, only the Train Operating Company can be creditor so declaring yourself to be "creditor" is not only false, it misrepresents your authority. Please clarify as the reply will be sent to the DVLA's CAS. Should an honest reply not be forthcoming, you will know that CAS will raise your Assurance level to red.

How is a TOC a creditor for a byelaw offence when any fine levied goes to the treasury?

That's like saying the Police are a creditor when they catch you speeding - and is clearly complete Rowlocks!

I would state that their IS NOT AND NEVER COULD BE a creditor.

Thank you for the suggestions.
The ultimate purpose of the initial letter is to make MET confirm their legal standings on this and obtain a POPLA code.
Reasoning with MET is a pointless exercise as afar as evidence presented on these forums goes and MET are fully aware they cannot be naming themselves as creditor for byelaw offences but still choose to do so.
But an admission of this misrepresentation by them would be very useful when it comes to POPLA appeal.

anything wrong with the form I posted a link to ?
I believe that addresses all the issues

They are presumably invoking the dog's breakfast that is byelaw 14.4(i) which might be attempting to create a civil liability with respect to the vehicle owner. But then again it might not, it's very hard to say. But whatever the nature of the "penalty" referred to in 14.4(i):

- it does not say to whom it is due: the Crown, like any other byelaws penalty? The TOC? The TOC's private parking parasite? Who knows?

- it specifically refers to the [i]owner/i] of the vehicle. Who dat den? They have no way of knowing. DVLA certainly can't tell them!

- it's helpful of them to mention the enabling legislation, because the enabling legislation appears to confer the power to make byelaws only with respect to railway assets i.e. there doesn't seem to be any power to create byelaws to penalise people (e.g. vehicle owners) who may never have been on a railway asset in their life.

Please provide evidence of the apparent breach of Byelaw 14 and confirm that a no parking fee was not received on this date

I wouldn't ask for evidence
It implies that a payment is owed if they produce it