MET parking ticket - decision overturned

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

M1,

It looks like none of them have completed the process, or not fed back if they have. I have messaged a couple so will see what comes back.

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

M1,

Good afternoon.

Our notification for the popla was on 23rd Novemberr with the date of the parking violation being 4th November. I think that this means as per our previously chat that I should be doing a letter to popla. I hope that you have had enough feedback from the other popla cases that were ongoing by now, and was wondering if you could help me with my letter?

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket

Sadly the only result i've seen was a concession (no evidence provided by the operator).

markwindsurf.rtf

Edit to suit (you never said how much so double check)

Save to pdf and http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...a-process.html

M1

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

M1,

Thanks very much will have a read through and then follow the instructions on parking prankster.

Mark

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

M1,

Thanks very much for your help. I put the Popla appeal in on Tuesday, so now think I am just in the waiting game, it is apparently 'In Progrees' awaiting evidence from the operator, so will see what happens now.

Mark

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

M1,

I have had the MET response ref the parking ticket, is there a way to send it through to you it is a PDF?

Thanks.

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket

[MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] can do it if you email them. (see signature)

M1

[Kati]

Re: MET parking ticket

I'd be happy to redact and post up xx

[Kati]

Re: MET parking ticket

Here ya go:

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket

Is it me being unfamiliar with the area or should the signs indicated on the map be visible in the vehicle photos ?

M1

[ostell]

Re: MET parking ticket

Looking through the PDF I've got a few comments:

Using Google maps.

In and out past sign 6, Bordesly Park Road. Insufficient time to read as manouvering required before turning in and then side sideways on to vehicle and on the near side of the vehicle and too high to be read across the car.

Looking at Google maps possible to park up without reading any further signs, though the pictures are old., Other signs facing away from car Need to go on site again to check posititions.

Page 4
The parking charge has been issued for breach of a contract that had been formed between the driver and MET Parking Services Ltd. It is based on the signage in the car park. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 10 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that there is a maximum stay in the car park of 2 ½ hours.

Page 4
As per the ruling by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in ParkingEye and Barry Beavis (2015), a parking charge need not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and this charge is at a similar level to that deemed neither extravagant nor unconscionable by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

However the court of Appeal did say something about the fact was because PE paying for the site and therefore a landholder and therefore had standing to make the charge to recover their expenses ie commercial sum

Page 7
The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered this point and held that ParkingEye had contracted with the motorist as a principal and not as agent and the contract had been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the motorist parking his car on the site.

PE were deemed the principal as they were paying a considerable sum to use the site. In this case MET are not paying and therefore cannot be considered the principal and therefore the sum is a penalty.

This is an incomplete contract provided as it only includes sections 3 and 4

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

M1,

Not sure if the pictures should be visible on the images as have never been to the carpark and it is a bit of a way from us, my wife was the one stopped in on a shopping trip.

Ostell,

Have read through your comments should I be presenting them back to Popla as a response to their statement?

Thanks,

Mark

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket

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

The site plan shows sign 6 on the right as you enter at the nearest entrance, near the hedge. Page 38, the "signs 6,7 & 8 relative to each other" photo shows 6 on your left hand side. As the site plan and photos are in conflict neither can be relied upon for accuracy. In any event the sign is in a postion which renders it unreadable from a moving vehicle.

On page 4 the operator states that the limit is 2 and a half hours which is less than the time on site.

The operator has not shown a valid, in date contract, or indicated in any way that this one is still in force.

M1

[ostell]

Re: MET parking ticket

There is also frustration of any alleged contract as the car had broken down. Have you got a receipt for the AA to show this?

Re Beavis there is no commercial justification of the charge as MET are not paying a fee to operate in the area. This was one of the reasons that the Court of appeal found in favour of PE.

Have you had any letters etc that make mention of asking the manager for an extension of the time, if required. If so you could say that the alleged contract had hidden terms that you were not made aware of and therefore the contract cannot be enforceable

The redaction in the alleged copy of the contract, which is undated, are so severe that you cannot determine what actual authority MET actually have. The copy supplied would appear to be incomplete. The statement of truth, dated 2013, is insufficient especially because of the undated portion of the contract and therefore no obvious correlation between the two.


Best of luck

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

Have still not had any feedback from the POPLA, still in assessment mode.