MET Parking Fine

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

You are under no obligation whatsoever to accept POPLA's decision.
Only the parking co's must abide by it if it goes against them.

Which 'contravention(s) were they pursuing in this appeal? (I can only see 1 in your post attachment).

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=108498]Abbie[/MENTION]

Any joy with the above?

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]
My apologies, I have only just seen this. I’m at work at the moment and all the paperwork is at home but I think they were appealing that there was no permit displayed and seem to have side swiped the la k of signage etc. POPLA upheld two of the previous ones that I appealed and I appealed on the same basis for all of them.

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@charitynjw
My apologies, I have only just seen this. I’m at work at the moment and all the paperwork is at home but I think they were appealing that there was no permit displayed and seem to have side swiped the la k of signage etc. POPLA upheld two of the previous ones that I appealed and I appealed on the same basis for all of them.

Ok.

Exactly which one(s) were the subject of the failed POPLA appeal?

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

It isn't entirely clear from Popla's decision but the only script received on the appeal decision was as above. I assume that the below therefore is their contravention is as below:

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

However as previously posted they also went on about the signage and Popla also claimed that they were happy that MET were compliant with MET's PCN/NtK and therefore MET are pursuing the Registered Keeper as the driver cannot be identified.

It has made me so irate as the signs that they submitted in their evidence just are not there, are illegible and also one isn't even in the car park or where a motorist would see it! I was near the same site today and notice now that new signs have been put up in the last couple of days so no doubt they will try to claim that they had been there all along!
What would you advise that I do?
Thanks so much once again for your assistance.

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=108498]Abbie[/MENTION]

Hi

Could you tell me exactly which notice(s) they were chasing in this failed appeal?
I have an idea for an argument, but I want to get it spot on.

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@Abbie

Hi

Could you tell me exactly which notice(s) they were chasing in this failed appeal?
I have an idea for an argument, but I want to get it spot on.

Hi there, it is for 4 of the Notice to Keepers - as per the attached two that Kati managed to put up earlier in the thread. All 4 have the same wording and I am fully expecting another one soon too. The two charges that POPLA agree with my appeal on and therefore have been subsequently dropped have exactly the same wording as these too.
I hope this helps. Many thanks for this.

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=108498]Abbie[/MENTION]

Ok

Do you still have a pic of the site sign? (If not, I think it is in one of your post attachments).

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]
Thanks so much for responding, yes, I attach the picture here that I sent as part of my evidence and also 2 pictures that I took after they refused my appeal which show that the signs they gave as evidence from 2015 are no longer there if that helps at all. I thought I could use them for a counter claim but evidently not!

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@Abbie

This is just a thought, but I believe it has merit.

With reference to the Notice to Keepers, post #52 & the site signs in the attachment on your post #36 attachments.

The NtK's refer to "a period of parking immediately prior to (time/date) specified above".
But it does not 'specify' a period of parking 'above'.
It just specifies a time.

Also, if you refer to the site signs (post #36 attachment), it does not mention any particular periods of parking on them either (sometimes signs state parking for, say 1 or 2 hrs, etc, sometimes free, sometimes paid for...but that isn't important here).

What is important is that, for transfer of liability via the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (PoFA), they must state a period of parking.

In all the dictionary definitions I've researched (Oxford English Dictionary is usually the most acceptable), a period of time has a beginning & an end.

period




NOUN

• 1A length or portion of time.
  ‘he had long periods of depression’
  
  
  ‘the period 1977–85’
  
  ‘the training period is between 16 and 18 months’

It is mandatory that a period of time is stated.

9

(1)

A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)

The notice must—

(a)

specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted

To my mind, the clincher is that there are no periods of time on the sign either, so they have no 'wriggle room'.
Neither the Ntk by itself, or in conjunction with the sign terms/conditions, satisfy the conditions imposed by PoFA.

What say you?

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@Abbie

This is just a thought, but I believe it has merit.

With reference to the Notice to Keepers, post #52 & the site signs in the attachment on your post #36 attachments.

The NtK's refer to "a period of parking immediately prior to (time/date) specified above".
But it does not 'specify' a period of parking 'above'.
It just specifies a time.

Also, if you refer to the site signs (post #36 attachment), it does not mention any particular periods of parking on them either (sometimes signs state parking for, say 1 or 2 hrs, etc, sometimes free, sometimes paid for...but that isn't important here).

What is important is that, for transfer of liability via the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (PoFA), they must state a period of parking.

In all the dictionary definitions I've researched (Oxford English Dictionary is usually the most acceptable), a period of time has a beginning & an end.


It is mandatory that a period of time is stated.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted

To my mind, the clincher is that there are no periods of time on the sign either, so they have no 'wriggle room'.
Neither the Ntk by itself, or in conjunction with the sign terms/conditions, satisfy the conditions imposed by PoFA.

What say you?

Yes, I agree with you on this point and I did mention this in my appeals to Popla but they seem to have ignored it and their responses concentrated on the fact that there was no permit/ticket/voucher on display (which was the point in the NtK's) but frankly no one would know they needed to display them because of the lack of signage etc. Do you think your approach as above is worth a shot then? Do I appeal this to POPLA or MET themselves? Apparently I have 28 days to pay the fines which will take me to the middle of January.

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=108498]Abbie[/MENTION]

Best bet is to complain via POPLA.
Definitely worth a shot & also to put the onus on them to explain exactly why the appeal was rejected.

But before we do, I'd like to bring our Amethyst in to give a view. Would you be ok with that?

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@Abbie

Best bet is to complain via POPLA.
Definitely worth a shot & also to put the onus on them to explain exactly why the appeal was rejected.

But before we do, I'd like to bring our Amethyst in to give a view. Would you be ok with that?

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

Thank you for this. Yes, I am happy to bring Amethyst in to give a view. All help is most gratefully received

[charitynjw]

Re: MET Parking Fine

@Amethyst

We touched on this the other day.
Just wondered whether you have any further views.

Quick recap....failed POPLA appeal (POPLA adjudicator appears to think that Notice to Keeper is compliant).
I disagree, for reasons stated above.

@Abbie
Amethyst isn't around just now, but I'm sure she will pick this up soon.

[Abbie]

Re: MET Parking Fine

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

Many thanks for all your help and asking Amethyst. I will await the response.

Kind regards