MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

[arthur2365]

Hello everyone.


I've been looking for information on the forum regarding how to respond to my parking charge.
I had to respond quickly because I was coming back from my holiday break when I found a letter from MET Parking Services.
I think I made a mistake during the appeal. Please help me if it is not too late.


PS. In the attached photos you can see that I stopped there for less than 5 minutes, I had to make a quick phone call.
At the same time I rode a few meters ahead.

[ostell]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

Was the identity of the driver revealed, as they say? If so it's a shame as they have failed to comply with POFA to hold the keeper liable.

the signs are probitive, ie they are not offering a parking contact so there can be no breach of contract. Basically they can't prohibit parking etc then charge you for parking. Trespass yes but they are not the landowners and therefore cannot take action for trepass

[arthur2365]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

Thank you for your answer.
During the appeal to POPLA I wrote to them that I stayed there for a short while.
Something is wrong with these road signs, I wrote about it in the appeal, but the other side said they are quite fine.

[ostell]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

As you have identified the driver then the failure to comply with POFA is no longer of any use.

The way ahead will be those signs not offering parking and therefore cannot creat a contract to breach

[charitynjw]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

There is also the possibility of arguing grace periods.

In the 2 pictures shown, it appears that you have changed position.

I would imagine that in one of them, you must have still been moving.

So they can only say that you were parked for one of the pics?

Allowable grace periods for stopping, reading signs, & for subsequently exiting, are part of the Code of Practice & are obviously concerned with the driver, so applicable to your case.

This in addition to the 'forbidding' signage, & the penalty term dressed up to look like a breach of a (non-existent) contract.

You do not have to accept the POPLA decision.

[arthur2365]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

I do not want to lie about the driver, the misleading information written on my part may someday turn against me.
I Will write to them about the misinformation, impossible to read, included in the description on the sign, from the driver's seat.
I will also mention, these 2 different pictures of "parking" that they sent to me.


Thank you very much for help.


I'm sorry that I can not reply so often, but I have very little time to be in front of the computer.


PS. Letter from the DVLA

[OliverJames]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

Allowable grace periods for stopping, reading signs, & for subsequently exiting, are part of the Code of Practice & are obviously concerned with the driver, so applicable to your case.

The time inbetween the 2 photographs they have taken isn't long at all, and as @charitynjw mentioned, they should allow a grace period for you to read the terms and conditions on their signs, which looks very small, and would 100% require you to get out of the car. This could take a few minutes to do, and if someone asked you for directions somewhere or you received a quick phone call while out of the car you've got your 3 minutes!

Seems a bit shitty from their side....zero surprise though

[ostell]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

I do not want to lie about the driver,

Normally when dealing with these things then all correspondence is from the Keeper, that is not a lie. The keeper can also say that they visited the site to asses the situation and had trouble viewing the signs.

So the signs are not creating a contract, they are saying that you can't park there and therefore there can be no contract to park and yet they are now saying there is a contract which has been breached. For a contract to exist there has to be an offer and acceptance., there was no offer.

The photos are showing that the car moved. If the car has moved does this not show that the car was caught up in a line of slowly moving traffic and therefore moving does not equate to parking.

So wait till a letter before claim arrives and then come back to this thread. The good news is that Smart do not appear to have been to court at all in the last 3 years.

[arthur2365]

Re: MET parking notice problem after appeal to POPLA

Hi.
Thank you for the answers in my case.
I have a reply from POPLA and I have to ask you for help once again. What to do now?

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Matthew Yorke

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant parked in a no parking area.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they stayed at the place for just a moment, as they wanted to make a phone call. The appellant sates that they did not park and did not wait. The appellant says that during the phone call, a police car showed up so they ended the call and left. The appellant states they asked for information of the terms and conditions, but they were just told they were displayed in the area. The appellant states that they think the signs are badly located, and does not indicate parking space or time. The appellant says that there is no way to read the information from the driver’s position.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “PRIVATE PROPERTY: Motorists visiting this car park are entering into a contractual agreement and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of use and also accept liability to pay the parking charge if they fail to comply with them: NO PARKING AT ANY TIME: IF YOU CONTRAVENE ANY OF THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE YOU WILL BE CHARGED AS FOLLOWS: £100.00 PARKING CHARGE.” The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant parked in a no parking area. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number, "car" parked at the site on 14 September 2017. The vehicle was observed stopping at the site at 14:05 and leaving the site at 14:08. The appellant’s case is that they stayed at the place for just a moment, as they wanted to make a phone call. The appellant sates that they did not park and did not wait. The appellant says that during the phone call, a police car showed up so they ended the call and left. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”. This section of the BPA Code of Practice is for a motorist to review the terms and conditions and decide whether to stay or leave. The appellant the appellant by their own admission has advised that they stop to take a call. Therefore, the operator does not need to allow a grace period, as the appellant was not reviewing the terms and conditions and was making use of the facilities by remaining on the site. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. The appellant states they asked for information of the terms and conditions, but they were just told they were displayed in the area. If the appellant has any issues surrounding the operator’s appeal process, they will need to take this up with the operator directly. POPLA is an appeals service; we are unable to comment on the operator’s appeal process. Customer service issues should be directed to the operator. The appellant states that they think the signs are badly located, and does not indicate parking space or time. The appellant says that there is no way to read the information from the driver’s position. The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “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”. Upon reviewing the photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, I can see that there is a sign in close proximity to where they stopped. The sign clearly states that there is no parking at any time. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the appellant’s vehicle has been on site parked in a no parking area, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.