met parking charge.

[fight4your right]

Hi guys. long time watcher first time poster
So had my run in with met parking and have had my appeal rejected.
They have supplied me with the POPLA number.
Ive read through all the posts i can find on here and mystery1 seems the man to speak to
I can find the template letter for the pre october charges but i cannot find one for the post oct charges. Is there some one on here who can help me please?
Im a father to 4 and as we can all imagine I can think of better places for this money to be going on the run up to xmas,
Thanks again in advance and any help will be truely appreciated !!!

This is the only one i can find
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter

[mystery1]

Re: met parking charge.

I haven't got round to it yet as you are the 1st ask

I think the old one will still work but it may best to post everything up and we'll see if there is something else to boost it.

I'll have a better read of the code of practice next week too.

M1

[fight4your right]

Re: met parking charge.

when you say post it up....what do you need me to post up ?
Thanks again

[mystery1]

Re: met parking charge.

Letters, signs etc. Anything you have. Take your name, address and reg off them but leave dates on.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: met parking charge.

Unless you have further info i'd suggest something like http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...119#post495119

M1

[fight4your right]

Re: met parking charge.

Sorry for the late reply. Things have been manic.
Basically i contested in the first instance with a reply of
"Reasons of contest
1st reason. I work on the estate and have never even seen these signs until the notice turned up and I went to investigate.
2nd .the entry sign is so high in the air unless staring up in the air it isn't particularly visable .
3rd. Even the red signs that are scattered by parking spaces are so far in the air that unless you drive in looking up you wouldn't see them. (Please see the picture of the sign high above a normal car).
. 4th and the most important one. You regulate the car park for mcdonald's and have the 90 minute period in force , how ever McDonald's cctv in the restaurant will show at no point did we leave the restaurant and go else where. We were having a child's birthday there and the place was so busy it took the time you have penalised me for to get and eat our desired meal. How can I be charged for exceeding the time limited offered if in the specified limit the meal wasn't finished . Because of the fault of the Mcdonald staff was I supposed to leave the restaurant with my children and disabled wife with an unfinished meal to appease your terms and condition that in honesty are not easily visable as per you charge notice? I understand the reasons behind time limits as I previously stated I work on that estate so I understand the reasoning behind it. But to fine someone for consuming the meal the purchased in the establishment your monitoring is ludicrous.
Please review and quash this fine.
I await your reply .
carl."

Their reply, was for them to straight away jump at the reference of my disabled wife to which i replied that that was a point of reference not the case i was making and as i was not parked in a disabled bay i have no need to supply them with those details.

These are the pictures i took and supplied them which i was lucky enough to get one with a lorry as well giving visual of the high placement of the sign.


And a picture of their reply.


The date of issue was 30/10/2014

Thanks for the replys, i really do appreciate it

[mystery1]

Re: met parking charge.

I'll be back after the footie but i notice the sign says it's a penalty :nono:

M1

[mystery1]

Re: met parking charge.

I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds.


1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.


2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.


3. Met parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.


4. Met parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.


5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.








1.The charges are penalties.


The charges are represented as a breach of contract. Whilst it is disputed that a contract was entered into (see point 2) according to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"


£100 is clearly not proportionate to a few minutes overstay when parking itself is free. Neither is it commercially justified because patrons of McDonalds will spend more money if they have more time. The car park wasn't full so there was no intial loss. As this is clearly a trespass scenario, although not described as such, the charges in law need to be a genuine pre estimate of loss.


I require MET to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. MET cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.


According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner does not impose a parking fee for the area in question, there is no loss to MET nor the landowner. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''






2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


I did not see any signs at the site. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

In any event the signs say "NO unauthorised parking". It is clear it was not a contractual charge but a penalty designed to deter. Should MET parking change tack and now allege trespass, it is trite law that for trespass one can only reclaim losses or a genuine pre estimate of loss. The charge is way beyond and genuine pre estimate of losss and is a clear penalty.










3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
MET do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. It is further made very clear in the appeal rejection letter the the manager of McDonalds had authority to extend the free time and it is also state don the sign that " parking control is managed by Met parking control services limited on behalf of McDonalds". As such, I do not believe that MET has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow MET to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.




In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.




So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between MET and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/71a4eb1b5de2...essKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1




In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'




I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. MET cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.






I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.




It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."




The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."




In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.








4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.


The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required. They were also very high and well above a drivers line of sight.




5. ANPR ACCURACY




This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is 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.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator inParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.




So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case o fmy vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.












M1

[fight4your right]

Re: met parking charge.

Thanks my friend. Hope karma does you a good turn one day