Met Parking

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Hi Guys,

I've just read this forum, I was hoping you might be able to help me as well.

I parked my car in my buildings carpark, I have a fob to enter and I parked in the correct space. I have never had a permit and have parked before (admittedly I do not live there so am not there often)
I got a fine for £120 (reduced by 50% if paid in 14days) I appealed immediately, however they have rejected the appeal and told me to go to POPLA. I didn't notice the signs but they are there.

I was wondering if you think I should try to fight it and what I should send to POPLA?

Thanks
Sophie

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Guys,

I've just read this forum, I was hoping you might be able to help me as well.

I parked my car in my buildings carpark, I have a fob to enter and I parked in the correct space. I have never had a permit and have parked before (admittedly I do not live there so am not there often)
I got an MET fine for £120 (reduced by 50% if paid in 14days) I appealed immediately, however they have rejected the appeal and told me to go to POPLA. I didn't notice the signs but they are there.

I was wondering if you think I should try to fight it and what I should send to POPLA?

Thanks
Sophie

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: MET parking notice - won

Just noticed you will want my POPLA code, it is: Edit :- No we don't !

Hoping Mystery1 is around

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

When you say your building, what exactly do you mean ?

Does the contract mention parking ? What does it say ?

M1

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

I own the flat.

I don't have a copy of my lease, but I phoned the managing agent and they said I have to contact MET directly.

Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

Be handy to know what the lease says as quite often management companies talk pish. I couldn't comment on whether they get a kickback though.

M1

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

Hi,

I have got my lease from the Land registry. Not sure what I am looking for though?

Thanks for any help

[ostell]

Re: Met Parking

You are looking for any mention of conditions for parking, the right to park on the land etc. Does it mention that you require a permit to be displayed? How old is your lease? How long have Met been on the site? ie was the lease in existence before Met appeared on the scene?

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

There is nothing about a permit on my lease. The only mention of parking is:

after the address: , Londonand parking space 10

My Purchase is from July 13, all the other details on the lease are from 2006. I am going to have to do some digging to find out when MET took over the land

[ostell]

Re: Met Parking

So Met are charging you for parking on your own land., They can only act with the permission of the owner. I'm sure you could remember giving them permission !

There was a case where similar happened and the owner of the land too the PPC to court and it cost the PPC over £1000 for putting tickets on where they did not have authority.

I think you've got the hang of what is being looked for.

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

There are signs everywhere though, indicating a permit must be shown, I just had never paid any attention as I am normally only at the flat for ten minutes at a time. It seems they are trying to fine me for parking on my own land though!!

I'm being told elsewhere to just ignore it, but should I appeal through POPLA?

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

There are signs everywhere though, indicating a permit must be shown, I just had never paid any attention as I am normally only at the flat for ten minutes at a time. It seems they are trying to fine me for parking on my own land though!!

I'm being told elsewhere to just ignore it, but should I appeal through POPLA?

You could ignore it (apart from court papers) but a popla appeal will kill it. A popla appeal gives finality to the matter quicker than waiting for the 6 year statute of limitations to kick in.

Let me know if you want a popla appeal and i'll compose it for you.

M1

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

I would love an appeal please.

Thank you so much!

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

I'll get to it soon.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

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 parking without a permit. The driver on the day did not see any signs and in any event as leaseholder has no legal need to place a permit on the vehicle as per the terms of the lease. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a 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 stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for free. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense to stop people parking in a legally allocated space with no restriction and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. £100 cannot be so as the figures quoted include business costs.

I require MET parking to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. MET parking 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 allows free parking for shoppers and several hundred pounds were spent then there is no loss. 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 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 carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.


3. Contract with landowner - no locus standi


MET parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that MET parking 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 parking 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/0ce354ec6697...&alloworigin=1


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.

The driver was the leaseholder with a legal right of occupation and at no time invited or contracted with the operator to ticket vehicles.

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.

The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"


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 in ParkingEye 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 of my 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

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] Thanks so much! I am going to send this to POPLA now.

You are a very strange kind of superhero....