MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay - won

[Mr Fergus]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

at the risk of sounding stupid, what should i do with these?i understand that you have listed the grounds for appeal in the rtf file, but i am unsure as to whether to attach this file and enter the text into the relevant area?

also, i am not entirely sure which categories would be appropriate in this case such as "i was not improperly parked > the terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed"

the other areas in the rtf file dont appear to have sections in the main categories available for selection, and seem to only fit into the "other" category.

as you said, there is only one chance to get this right and i want to be 100% sure i get this correct. apologies if im being a pain, or i sound a bit stupid.

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

Follow the instructions in the link

Probably best to save the appeal as a PDF.

also, i am not entirely sure which categories would be appropriate in this case such as "i was not improperly parked > the terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed"

Any and all that apply unless it identifies the driver.

the other areas in the rtf file dont appear to have sections in the main categories available for selection, and seem to only fit into the "other" category.

Other is fine.

:okay:

M1

[Mr Fergus]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

at further risk of being an idiot, im at the section for "noy improperly parked > signage" i have split the section referring to signage in the rtf, into 2 section with the first paragraph being the "summary of this ground of appeal" and the further sections into the "why do you perceive that the terms were not properly signed" section.

i am unsure what to insert into the "can you provide evidence that the terms were not properly signed" and "can you upload any evidence to support your position" i have a large selection of images showing the height and obscurity of the signs (and their placement.

once again, sorry for being a pain.

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

If you have photos upload them. The answer to the question, for me, is "yes"

M1

[Mr Fergus]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

im sorry, but this may be easy for you. however, some of us struggle with this kind of thing and that is why we come here for help.

im just not sure what to put into the "evidence to support your claim"

[Kati]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

im sorry, but this may be easy for you. however, some of us struggle with this kind of thing and that is why we come here for help.

im just not sure what to put into the "evidence to support your claim"

All/any photo's you have and possibly a witness statement (if you have one) xx

[Mr Fergus]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

All/any photo's you have and possibly a witness statement (if you have one) xx

i put those into the "Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that the terms and conditions were not properly signed?" section.

to me they read as the same thing, and im confused as to what the difference is. also, M1 provided what appears to be a legal transcript and i have no idea what to do with it.

[Kati]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

I'm sure [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] will be able to advise

Personally, I'd be pitting everything I can in on the site wherever I could - including duplicates (better safe than sorry) ... but I might be wrong

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

The PE v MRS X ?

Just add it as a file and add that it supports the not parked argument.

M1

[Mr Fergus]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

i have filled in the appeal to the best of my ability, and am awaiting the password for the appeals tracking

[Mr Fergus]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

today we have received a set of images and arguments from met parking (5 days after they submitted them to popla) and they have made arguments to every point we made.

i used officelens to scan all the pages and have assembled them into a pdf, which i am uploading (personal details erased of course).

we are unsure as to what to do now and any help is greatly appreciated.

file too large to upload, used onedrive instead: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...int=file%2cpdf

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

There is no evidence of who was driving and the operator has stated they do not wish to utilise keeper liability.

The operator has admitted they have not specified the period of parking as their signs indicate a maximum stay. The signs are irrelevant for PoFA 2012 schedule 4 purposes and when the act asks to specify a period of parking it matters not what any signs say.

The "contract" looks like something a 5 year old drew up in their spare time, perhaps due to concealment of parts of it.

M1

[Mr Fergus]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

Today I received an email from popla, informing me that they had made a decision.

This is the contents of the decision:

DecisionSuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle remained in the car park for longer than authorised.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) does not demonstrate a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss and that the operator does not have authority to issue and pursue PCNs. They have also stated the signage displayed in the car park was insufficient and that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 when attempting to transfer keeper liability.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has stated within their appeal that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of PoFA. Within its evidence, the operator has provided a copy of a contract with the landowner confirming its authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this land. Within this contract it is stated that the land the operator manages is not “Relevant Land as defined in Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.” PoFA, as used to transfer liability for a PCN to the keeper, is only applicable on what within the Schedule is defined as “Relevant Land”. In this case the driver had not been identified and the operator is pursuing the keeper. As the operator has evidenced that PoFA is unable to be used to pursue this PCN and has not provided any other details under which it is attempting to transfer liability to the keeper, I can only conclude that the keeper is not liable for this PCN.

From what I can tell (this stuff scrambles my brain) we have been successful.

Thank you so much for your help with this, its greatly appreciated.

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services - Norwich Riverside Leisure Pool overstay

DecisionSuccessful

I can only conclude that the keeper is not liable for this PCN

Those are the 2 bits that matter to you

M1