MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

[Bopper84]

Hi guys,

I have also recently been stung by a MET Parking PCN, issued at McDonalds Coldra (near Celtic Manor Resort on the Welsh border). I have appealed the charge and received a rejection notice from MET Parking over the weekend. I need to get my letter to POPLA posted before going on holiday this Wednesday (26th). I'll adapt the pre-October letter I think, unless mystery1 gets chance to kindly post an updated letter template.

MET are threatening to withdraw the offer to pay the reduced amount of £50 (instead of £100) if I take this to POPLA. Surely that is a breach of my consumer rights for a start as I shouldn't be coerced into paying the reduced amount through following the appeals process??!

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

If it helps, I will post up my initial appeal letter to MET Parking and their rejection letter relating to my appeal

Many thanks,

Bopper84

[Bopper84]

Re: met parking charge.

Here is the appeal letter I sent to MET Parking Services -

Customer Services Team
MET Parking Services Ltd.
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE

(Address 1)
(Address 2)
(Post Code)

Tuesday 11^th November 2014

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to contest Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference xxxxxxxxxx regarding vehicle xxxx xxx.

I was in a party of four (in two vehicles) who stopped at McDonalds Coldra in Newport on the way back from a family wedding.
The car park was rather busy, resulting in us parking in two parking spaces in the far corner of the car park relative to the McDonalds restaurant. As the four of us walked across the length of the car park from our two vehicles to the restaurant doors, not one of us noticed any signs detailing the parking restrictions in place. I am not questioning the existence of these signs, but surely they should be much more noticeable if four individuals can walk the length of the car park and not one of them notices the signage? Therefore I would strongly refute the claim in your PCN document that “These terms were clearly displayed in prominent places within the car park.”

Additionally, I understand that under The Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, consumers should not be punished financially as part of any contract they enter into. I would therefore challenge you to prove how this £100 PCN charge is not financially punitive?

Finally, I would also like you to prove that you have clear authorisation from the landowner of McDonalds Coldra car park to issue PCN charges on their land?

Please do contact me on the number below if you wish to discuss this verbally.

Many thanks,

Name
(Tel Number)

[Bopper84]

MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

Hi guys,

I have also recently been stung by a MET Parking PCN, issued at McDonalds Coldra (near Celtic Manor Resort on the Welsh border). I have appealed the charge and received a rejection notice from MET Parking over the weekend. I need to get my letter to POPLA posted before going on holiday this Wednesday (26th). I'll adapt the pre-October letter I think, unless mystery1 gets chance to kindly post an updated letter template.

MET are threatening to withdraw the offer to pay the reduced amount of £50 (instead of £100) if I take this to POPLA. Surely that is a breach of my consumer rights for a start as I shouldn't be coerced into paying the reduced amount through following the appeals process??!

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

If it helps, I will post up my initial appeal letter to MET Parking and their rejection letter relating to my appeal

Many thanks,

Bopper84

[Bopper84]

Re: MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

Here is the appeal letter I sent to MET Parking Services -

Customer Services Team
MET Parking Services Ltd.
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE

(Address 1)
(Address 2)
(Post Code)

Tuesday 11^th November 2014

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to contest Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference xxxxxxxxxx regarding vehicle xxxx xxx.

I was in a party of four (in two vehicles) who stopped at McDonalds Coldra in Newport on the way back from a family wedding.
The car park was rather busy, resulting in us parking in two parking spaces in the far corner of the car park relative to the McDonalds restaurant. As the four of us walked across the length of the car park from our two vehicles to the restaurant doors, not one of us noticed any signs detailing the parking restrictions in place. I am not questioning the existence of these signs, but surely they should be much more noticeable if four individuals can walk the length of the car park and not one of them notices the signage? Therefore I would strongly refute the claim in your PCN document that “These terms were clearly displayed in prominent places within the car park.”

Additionally, I understand that under The Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, consumers should not be punished financially as part of any contract they enter into. I would therefore challenge you to prove how this £100 PCN charge is not financially punitive?

Finally, I would also like you to prove that you have clear authorisation from the landowner of McDonalds Coldra car park to issue PCN charges on their land?

Please do contact me on the number below if you wish to discuss this verbally.

Many thanks,

Name
(Tel Number) Edit Post Reply Reply With Quote

---

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

Haha, i read that as your popla appeal to start with and was thinking wtf.


The old appeal should still work however i'd like to adapt it depending on whether it's trespass or breach of contract to accomodate any potential new arguments not the slippery BPA guys have changed the code of practice.

Way behind due to the avalanche this weekend and have a defence to rescue as top priority but hope to get popla done asap too.

M1

[Bopper84]

Re: MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

Ok thanks M1, appreciate it

I'll try to post the original PCN letter and appeal rejection from MET Parking later tonight or early tomorrow for reference.

Thanks again for your help with this, much appreciated!

Bopper84

[Bopper84]

Re: MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

Hi - see attached for the original PCN received from MET Parking Services.

Many thanks,

Bopper84

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

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, nor the 3 others i was with, 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.

SIGNAGE NON-COMPLIANT WITH MOTORWAY SERVICE STATION REQUIREMENTS
This was a Motorway Services Area. Operators of Motorway Services Areas (MSAs) and their agents must comply with the requirements of Government Policy. These provisions are reflected in the Traffic Signs Agreement into which they enter with the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency, on behalf of the Department forTransport (DfT), published a policy on the provision of roadside facilities on its network. That policy is 'DfT Circular 01/2008: Policy on Service Areas andother Roadside Facilities on Motorways and All-purpose Trunk Roads in England'.


The policy states that “B19. At all types of site, where a charge is to belevied for parking beyond the mandatory two free hours, the charging regimemust be clearly displayed within both the parking areas and the amenitybuilding.”


The compliance of the MSA with the above policy is disputed and I therefore require MET to prove that such clearly displayed signage exists within the amenity building(s) at the car park in question. It is not enough to prove that such signage exists within the car park itself.


Furthermore the policy states “All signing of roadside facilities and signing arrangements within sites must comply with the current Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and any other guidance as may be issued from time to time by the Department for Transport or the Highways Agency. Approval must be sought from the Highways Agency’s signs specialist for the use of all non-prescribed signs.”


I require MET to show proof to the POPLA adjudicator that the DFT/Highways Agency has granted special authorisation for MET's traffic signs in this particular MSA to be exempt from this policy requirement. It will not be acceptable for MET to claim that these particular signs are in MET's own opinion not 'traffic signs' when these signs have not been erected or positioned to direct pedestrians but instead act to provide information to vehicle users who may never leave their vehicles.





3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
MET do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. 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.


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

[Bopper84]

Re: MET Parking Chage (McDonalds Coldra - Newport)

Fantastic! Many thanks M1

Much appreciated!

I'll let you know the outcome of my appeal to POPLA

Bopper84