MET Parking Fine

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]
Hi there, I have had 2 of these appeals dropped and therefore I do not have to pay the fine for those. However, two of the remaining appeals so far have been rejected and I have 7 days to make comments on what MET have come back with. I have saved the file onto my laptop but I am unable to black out my personal details. Can I possibly email it to someone to take a look at please? The photos that they have attached of the alleged signage are dated 2015 and there is no way that they exist as that nowadays as the photo that I sent in with my evidence proves. They also showed one photo which is in fact clear but is outside of the car park and not even at a point of entry for cars that a motorist would see! They have also appealed against my comments on their notice to keeper not being compliant with the Protection Of Freedom Act 2012. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Abbie

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

You could send them to our [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION].

I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is

kati@legalbeaglesgroup.com

But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@charitynjw thank you so much. I have sent them to our @Kati. It seems of to me that they are trying to appeal against my appeal when two of them have been upheld. The photos are dated 2015 and the only sign that does exist there now is the one in location 1 on the paperwork but this is placed outside of the car park and not where a car would enter or exit. One would have to literally walk on foot out of the car park to see it. It is totally absurd!! They have also questioned the POFA comment that I made but I am unsure as to how to respond to that. I hope I have a good case to appeal against MET. It seems I have on the photos alone because they are not there in any of the locations aside from the first one that they gave.

Many thanks for your help.

Kind regards

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION]....morning Kati . Anything yet?

[Kati]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@Kati....morning Kati . Anything yet?

Got them ... I'll go through and then post up xx

[Kati]

Re: MET Parking Fine

here ya go

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

Thanks @Kati

@Abbie
Use their own evidence against them.
You are appealing as the registered keeper.
In order to transfer liability from the driver to the RK, the Notice to Keeper must state a period of parking.
It does not. (See their section B evidence Notice to Keeper)
They have even helpfully included PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 9(2)(a) in their evidence pack. (See 'Liability Trail'.)

a. Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on whit it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

So.....no RK liability.

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] Many thanks for this. Is it worth me also mentioning the photos which are clearly from 2015 and in fact they are no longer where they claim to be, one is outside the car park (and not at the motorist entrance so you would only see it on foot and if you made a decision to exit that car park on foot) another is at the motorist entrance and may well have been in 2015 but certainly isn't now, the other one is defaced and illegible?

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

I think I would do so.
It certainly can't harm.

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

How does this sound.....

I am appealing as the Registered Keeper, in order to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper, the Notice to Keeper must state a period of parking which it does not, please see section B evidence (Notice to Keeper) that MET supplied.
They have even helpfully included PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 9(2)(a) in their evidence pack. (See 'Liability Trail') where it states the following in "a":
a. Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
Therefore there is no liability.
In addition to this, the photos provided of the alleged signage are clearly from 2015 and in fact they are either no longer where they claim to be, illegible or not prominently displayed. One is outside the car park (and not at the motorist entrance so one would only see it on foot and only if one made a decision to exit that car park on foot) another is at the motorist entrance and may well have been in 2015 but certainly isn't now, of which I have relevant photographic evidence from Sunday 10 December 2017, the other one is defaced and illegible.
In light of all this recent evidence and the failure to comply with The Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 this charge needs to be dropped.
Many thanks

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@charitynjw

How does this sound.....

I am appealing as the Registered Keeper.
In order to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper, the Notice to Keeper must state a period of parking, which it does not.
Please see section B evidence (Notice to Keeper) that MET supplied.
They have even helpfully included PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 9(2)(a) in their evidence pack. (See 'Liability Trail') where it states the following in "a":
"(a) Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
Therefore there is no keeper liability.
In addition to this, the photos provided of the alleged signage are clearly historic photos, probably from 2015. They certainly are not current, and in fact the signs are either no longer where they claim to be, illegible or not prominently displayed. One is outside the car park (and not at the motorist entrance) so one would only see it on foot and only if one made a decision to exit that car park on foot.
Another is shown, according to the operator's evidence, to be at the motorist entrance and may well have been in 2015.
However, it certainly isn't now, of which I have relevant photographic evidence from Sunday 10 December 2017.
The other sign is defaced and illegible.
In light of all this recent evidence and the failure to comply with The Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 this charge needs to be dropped.
Many thanks

If it were me I'd split it up into shorter, more 'punchy' sentences.
Just to hammer the points home.

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

thank you so much with all you help on this. I will let you know what transpires.....

Kind regards

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] I suspect this will be the case with the other ones sadly. Do I just pay the fines then?


Popla have responded with the following:

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a valid parking permit.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. The appellant states the signage is not clear and therefore a contract has not been formed. The appellant believes the signage is unclear and the writing is illegible. The appellant has provided a photograph of a damaged sign.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance.For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to.The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012.Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle.The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states “Permit Holders Only…Vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times…If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100”.The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, DE64 OPN, at the site CTCS Ltd, on 13 October 2017.The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant’s vehicle failed to display a valid parking permit. I acknowledge the appellant has provided evidence of one sign, which is damaged. However, on review of the Parking Operators evidence, I can see there is a sign within close proximity to the appellant’s vehicle which is not damaged and clearly states the terms and conditions. The British Parking Association Code of Practice under Section 18.1 states, “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”.The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied that the appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to display a valid parking permit, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

Hi Abbie

If it were me I'd put in a complaint to POPLA.
You up for it?

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

Hi Abbie

If it were me I'd put in a complaint to POPLA.
You up for it?

I am up for that but I am worried that MET will expect my payment immediately and if I don't comply then things could get worse. They dismissed 2 appeals (with the same narrative) yet not the others and all from what I gleaned on the same basis!
Honestly, the photographic evidence they gave was so incredibly wrong and still is!
There is no option on POPLA to submit that photographic evidence when at the appeal stage which I found frustrating at the time and even more so now!!
They are clearly coming from a point of view regarding a permit in your window but the signs don't even exist anymore apart from the one that is illegible as it is so defaced and also the one that exists but actually unless you drive that far and hoon around you would never in a million years see it!! I have had 5 of the same back from POPLA now and that's very expensive when it wasn't clear to the motorist at all!! They are thieves!! I totally welcome your help. You have been amazing!
Kind regards