MET Parking Services advice

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

I'm working today but luckily back earlier than normal so from 8 ish. I'll do it asap.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...a-process.html

lapyiwinpopla.rtf

M1

[lapyiwin]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Thanks Mystery1

It must be the stress and some problems I'm going through.. I don't know why I didn't see your reply that day. I just woke up today to find out oh. gosh! I missed the deadline as I just remember it. I submitted the appeal with the letter you kindly prepared anyway but I don't think I stand any chance of winning it.

[lapyiwin]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Hello Mystery1

Sorry to bother you again.

POPLA said I need to fill out the comments on the "operator evidence" on the online appeal tracking page. I don't know what to mention in there. I have 7 days deadline apparently.

Also MET parking sent me "Evidence Pack" by email.

Could you kindly advise what to do next.

Thank you so much in advance.

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Post it up (sanitised) or email [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION].

M1

[lapyiwin]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Mystery1 Thanks so much for fast reply. I have emailed it to you.

[Kati]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

email from POPLA:

From: POPLA <info@popla.co.uk>
Subject: XXXXXXXXXXX Message from POPLA PTL: XXXXXXXX
Date: 11 February 2016 at 16:42:19 GMT
To: lapyiwin

Dear

Your parking charge appeal against MET Parking Services.

We have now received MET Parking Services's case file. If you have not received your copy then please contact MET Parking Services directly.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.


Any comments that you make after this time may not be considered as part of the appeal process.


Once this time has passed we will progress the appeal for assessment. We will let you know when this happens.


Yours sincerely


POPLA Team

email from MET:

From: MetParking Customer Services <CustomerServices@metparking.com>
Subject: Response to POPLA appeal XXXXXXXXX
Date: 11 February 2016 at 15:39:32 GMT
To: lapyiwin

Dear Sir/Madame,

Please find attached a copy of our evidence pack in response to POPLA appeal XXXXXXXXXX for your perusal. POPLA, the independent appeals service will now make a decision on your appeal.

Kind regards,

Customer Services
MET Parking Services Ltd
PO Box 64168, London, WC1A 9BE
T 0207 118 8003 | F 0845 370 8002
E customerservices@metparking.com | W www.metparking.com

MET's evidence pack:
[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] - one thing to note is that Pg 35 … it looks like they've attached the wrong NtK in the appeal (different pcn number and POPLA code/name/address/car reg/date and place of incident). Will it make a difference??

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

[MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] they seem to have the correct notice higher up ?


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

The contract/authority provided in evidence does not contain the information required by the BPA code of practice at section 7 with extra attention to 7.3



7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying
out parking management, you must have the written
authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed
agent). The written confirmation must be given before
you can start operating on the land in question and
give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car
park management for the site that you are responsible
for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their
appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code
of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue
outstanding parking charges.
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any
outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they
have the written authority of the landowner (or their
appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours
of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles
that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and
enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement


As this information is nowhere to be found there is no evidence of authority and the appeal must be allowed.

M1

[Kati]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

@Kati they seem to have the correct notice higher up ?

yep ... I'm just wondering if a little note in the reply mentioning MET's mistake (DPA??) would be in order? Or a letter sent to the person on the wrong NtK telling them MET have passed on their details? :noidea:

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Well you could but realistically, how many times do you want to win ?

Once will do fine

M1

[lapyiwin]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Hi Mystery1 and Kati

I am very grateful for your help. I just submitted using mystery1 note. Kati has very good point about DPA but like Mystery1 said we only need to win it once right? Hopefully there will be a victory at the end.. Thank you so much.

[lapyiwin]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Hello Mystery1, unfortunately our appeal is unsuccessful.

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Sadly popla is more of a lottery. 1 guy elsewhere had 2 appeals for the same thing on 2 days and won 1 and lost 1.

Can you post it up anyway, so we can complain about the inconsistencies ?

M1

[lapyiwin]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

Assessor supporting rational for decision





The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant following the notice to driver. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the notice to keeper will need to comply with section 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site in question. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions in force at the site, by parking their vehicle. The operator has issued the PCN on the basis that vehicle’s driver was not on the premises whilst the vehicle was parked. The operator has provided evidence of the McDonalds driver and vehicle site presence survey countersigned by a member of McDonald’s management. The survey indicates that that the driver was not present on site, at the time the PCN was issued. The appellant does not dispute this. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs displayed in the parking area state; “This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes”. Further, the operator has provided a site map that confirms the location of the signage at the site, including the entrance signs. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, explains that signs ‘must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand’. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. The appellant states that the operator does not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. The operator has provided a copy of the contract, confirming that it has the authority to carry out car park management and enforcement service for the site in question. As such, the operator proved that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has met the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I consider the signage sufficient for the appellant to have read and understood the terms and conditions of parking and therefore conclude the operator issued the Parking Charge correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

[Kati]

Re: MET Parking Services advice

....