MET Parking Appeal Rejected

[bridgesam]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

Thanks m1. Have just been reading a few other threads re Popla and landowner contract - saw one today which had been rejected as they had a contract from the landowner/agent. What makes you think that the letter of authority from Team Property Management is 'worthless'? Sorry, just want to put my mind at ease!

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

It was a rogue decision and no response to the popla evidence was sent. Luckily an appeal to the landowner has put matters right although the popla response to my letter will be interesting.

M1

[bridgesam]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

Then I'm guessing that the letter of authority on mine has no bearing as it fails to prove they had authority in November when the ticket was issued?

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

I'd say so.

Doesn't meet the code of practice 7.3 either.

M1

[bridgesam]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

Hi M1, unfortunately it's another POPLA loss for me (I've seen 4 others on other threads). Nevertheless, thank you for your help. No intention of paying this so I want to ask you - do you know if MET are one of the companies likely to take you to court? I know you're not psychic, but just asking if you have any knowledge on the matter!

POPLA judgement below:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Rebecca Grimes

Assessor summary of operator case
the operator states that The charge notice was issued because the vehicle did not clearly display a valid permit.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass; they are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant states that in order to form a contract, the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person and they were not. The appellant states that the operator does not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park, the operator has failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice as the signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 and there is not adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not specify a period of parking and other sections are not compliant with PoFA 2012.


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 without clearly displaying a valid permit. 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 provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state; “Permit Holders Only. Vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times and be parked only within the bay that corresponds with their permit” and “If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100.00 Parking Charge”. Further, the photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle show the signage present in the background. The operator has provided a site map that confirms the location of the signs at the site. 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 there is not adequate signage on entering the car park. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states under section 18.2, that “Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. The operator has provided evidence of the entrance signage present at the site in question and I am satisfied that it is complaint. The appellant states that the operator does not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a copy of the contract, confirming that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has therefore met the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant’s case is that the charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass; they are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. By not clearly displaying a permit the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of parking set out in the signage, therefore, I can only conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

Well they totally ignored that there is a discrepancy in the required info and info that needs repeating between the NTD and NTK.

I'm beginning to wonder if they subbed it out to the local primary school to help them learn to type !

Truly shocking.

M1

[bridgesam]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

If that's the case then they only seem to have learned to copy and paste! Are MET one of the ones who are likely to take it to court? haven't seen any posts in the 'live court claims' forum....

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking Appeal Rejected

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_P..._Services.html

Never seen one personally but it seems they have although not often.

M1