MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

[andy88890]

Ok, long story short here... I received a PCN from MET last November for an overstay visit to McDonalds car park in Braintree ( 90 mins allowed, we were there 1 hour 54 mins) I appealed with them and lost (no surprise there) I did not state I was the driver and that I was appealing on behalf of the driver who did not have to be named.

After reading several posts on here I put together my own POPLA appeal based on information posted by Mystery1 (I did not create my own thread on here as I was confident I could submit a valid case) I received a rejection from POPLA today. I have attached my initial rejection from the MET (apologies this is 3 separate files), my evidence submitted to Popla, and their rejection. I do have the MET evidence at home which I can also provide if required. My question to the experts here is... should I now just bite the bullet and pay the £100 fine? It pains me to do so but if it is highly likely I will get taken to court I'd rather pay as little as possible!

Any help very much appreciated!

- - - Updated - - -

Popla appeal doc attached...

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

I assume this was the new popla i.e. submitted in the last 4 months. Edit the following to suit. (change the losing decision at the end to yours.)


Ok, bearing in mind you have no further right to appeal and a complaint may yield nothing, i would complain to popla.


complaints@popla.co.uk

Ref popla #xxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to highlight the failure of your system to both be consistent and take in to account information presented to it. I appreciate that you will not consider the appeal any further but regardless your appeals service needs to avoid repeating such errors and inconsistencies in the future in order to maintain a certain level of trust with the public unlike your competitors TheIAS who are routinely referred to as a "kangaroo court".

Firstly i would like to list some of the reasoning for upholding appeals in other popla cases recently.


Decision
Successful




Reasons for the Assessor's determination
While the appellant has raised several grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land.
The operator has provided a signed statement regarding the landowner authority. However, as it does not set out all of the conditions covered in section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I am not satisfied that the document provided demonstrates sufficient landowner authority, as the date that the agreement started has not been completed.
In conclusion, the operator has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that it has the relevant landowner authority. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I do not need to consider the appellant's other grounds for appeal.







Decision
Successful


Assessor Name
Lauren Bailey


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant overstayed the paid parking time.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant has stated that signage at the car park is not sufficient.




Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. 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. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal and the other grounds raised by the appellant do not need further consideration.







Decision: Successful


Assessor summary of operator case:


The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the parking time he had paid for.


Assessor summary of your case:


The appellant’s grounds for appeal are as follows:
• The appellant does not believe the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).
• The appellant does not believe the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).
• The appellant does not feel the operator has applied a reasonable grace period.
• The appellant believes the signage displayed on site is insufficient.
• The appellant feels the PCN is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.


Assessor supporting rational for decision:


The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:06 and exiting the site at 14:16. The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.” The operator has not provided POPLA with the written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not need to consider them.




of the landowner to issue and pursue parking charge notices (PCN). Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. I acknowledge that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, but as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I have not considered them.





Decision: Successful


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay on site.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he does not feel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant does not believe the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. The appellant believes the Notice to Keeper did not adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant believes the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are unreliable.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.” The operator has not provided POPLA with the written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.





Decision


Successful




Assessorsummary of operator case


Insufficient time was purchased.


Assessorsummary of your case


She is the registered keeper andwishes to appeal as follows. 1. The charge is a penalty 2.
Unfair charges 3. Locus Standi 4.Signage


Assessorsupporting rational for decision


The appellant has raised severalgrounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on
Landowner authority as this ground haspersuaded me to allow the appeal. "Section 7 of the
British Parking Association (BPA) codeof practice requires operators to own the land or to have
written authority from the landownerto operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide
any evidence in response to thisground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required
authority to operate on the land inquestion. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I have not considered any othergrounds for appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision.






There are other results reported with far briefer synopsis than this for the same thing.







Contrast this with the decision in my case.



Assessor Name
Emily Chriscoli


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a disabled parking bay without displaying a valid blue badge.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she does not believe the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).




Assessor supporting rational for decision
Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.” As the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, I am satisfied that the operator has met the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “Vehicles parked in marked disabled bays must clearly display a valid disabled badge face up in the front windscreen at all times”. The operator has also provided a site map, highlighting the amount and location of all signs displayed within the car park. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” After reviewing the evidence of the signage displayed on site provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signs adhere to the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle on the date of the contravention, where it is clear that no blue badge has been displayed. I acknowledge that the appellant is in possession of a blue badge as she had provided the operator with photographic evidence of the badge in her original appeal, however the terms and conditions of the car park clearly state that vehicles parked in a disabled parking bay must be displaying a valid blue badge at all times. On this occasion, the appellant was not displaying a blue badge. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.





Nowhere in the evidence supplied does it say that the BPA code of practice must be adhered to. Nowhere is the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined explained. There is a name for the land but clearly you cannot tell the boundary, as required, from that. Nowhere does it state who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs. Nowhere does it state the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


Clearly as demonstrated your systems are inconsistent and further training is required. You should not decide many appeals on a point in one way and others in a different way.

Yours sincerely





Hopefully they'd take a 2nd look even if they say officially they won't.

M1

[andy88890]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

Thank you Mystery1 for such a speedy response. Yes this was the new Popla. I have sent a complaint email to Popla with the above information included. Hopefully they look at the case again! I will update once Popla responds

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

Thank you Mystery1 for such a speedy response. Yes this was the new Popla. I have sent a complaint email to Popla with the above information included. Hopefully they look at the case again! I will update once Popla responds

It's bizarre as i have seen the McD authority and it's always the same and never complies. Just shows you have to respond to the evidence and make it clear.

Did you ever speak to McD management ?

M1

[andy88890]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

To be honest I didn't speak with McD management based on other posts where I had read that this is generally a waste of time and pushed back onto the parking company. Do you think it is worthwhile?

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

It hasn't worked very often but it has worked.

M1

[andy88890]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

Well I just got this response from POPLA.. really insightful.


Thank you for contacting POPLA.
We note you are unhappy with our decision. However, we have now reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.
Yours sincerely,

Tim Jessop

POPLA Team

[mystery1]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

BPA will also be less than helpful.

Sadly popla is now more of a lottery and in fact you can do 2 appeals exactly the same for different days and get 2 contrasting results ! http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104699

I would just file everything bar court papers and see if they have the stomach for it.

M1

[andy88890]

Re: MET Parking POPLA Appeal Rejected... should I bite the bullet?

Thanks Mystery1. I had to send 3 separate emails requesting a response to my initial complaint, and that was the best they could do. Pathetic. I now feel like I would've been better off completely ignoring MET's letter, at least then they wouldn't have had an independent decision against me then! Really disappointed in POPLA.