Met Parking

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

Hi Mystery1

I have finally received a response from the MET Parking saying they have replied my appeal.

I now have 7 days to respond. They have uploaded a long document with responses. I cant really add it on here but is the best thing just to wait?

Thanks so much

Sophie

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

It really depends what it says. Can you email it to [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] ?

Or is there a contract or any mention of it ?

M1

[Kati]

Re: Met Parking

feel free to email it to me, I'll redact and post up xx

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

Thanks Kati, I've emailed it!

[Kati]

Re: Met Parking

Thanks Kati, I've emailed it!

Got it
[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]??

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

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

They did not deal with the fact that i am a leaseholder and my lease does not require me to display a permit. My lease takes precedence over any deal they may or may not have with anyone other than myself.

The letter or authority is dated 2014 and even if dated later it does not indicate it covers the time of alleged contravention. The letter would not be evidence enough in any event.



M1

[stevemLS]

Re: Met Parking

The lease on my flat contains a power for the MA to make Regulations as to, amongst othr things, the use of the car park, despite a space being included within the demise.

It was welcomed as prior to that people and their visitors were parking all over the place and flat owners couldn't get in their own spaces.

My own view is that the May 2014 letter is perfectly adequate to demonstrate their authority - is their any evidence to the contrary?

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

Hi Guys,

Unfortunately I lost the appeal - it seems they only considered one of the points. Not sure there is much more I can do. Thanks for your help.

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Safoora Sagheer

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the vehicle registered under LX60 TUP failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site by parking on site and failing to display a valid parking permit.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of sufficient clear signage located throughout the car park which clearly states permit holders only. The signage also explains that failure to adhere to the terms and conditions will result in the operator issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the value of £100. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (COP) mentions under section 18.3 “specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle”. The BPA COP also states 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. In reference to this I am satisfied the operator has provided a licence agreement confirming it is authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs to vehicles parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking. After reviewing the operator’s evidence I can see the appellant parked on site without displaying a valid permit, as such, the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the site. The appellant says the parking charge does not represent 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, 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. As the appellant has failed to adhere with the terms and conditions by parking on site without displaying a valid permit, I am satisfied that the PCN issued is valid. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

I'll get back to you. Looks like the cases that were held over from old popla are having no knowledge applied to them !

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

I would like to lodge a formal complaint in the way my popla appeal has been decided.

The assessor has failed to produce an assessment which follows the standard which the BPA and Popla themselves have indicated with the result that the decision itself calls in to question the knowledge and skill of the assessor or the independence of the appeal handling.

I attach to this complaint my appeal and the decision as well as the BPA code of practice.


The BPA website states "As well as being judicially independent, POPLA now has an Independent Scrutiny Board; guaranteeing absolute independence"

The Popla website states
"How does the assessor make their decision?

The assessor will review the evidence supplied by both parties to establish what happened during the incident. If it is relevant to the specific appeal, the assessor will consider whether the parking operator has correctly abided by the British Parking Association Code of Practice and relevant law."

The areas of complaint are :-

1. The assessor has ignored the requirements of the COP with regards to signage.

The evidence pack supplied shows the entrance signage on slide 32. The picture clearly shows the signs do not face the driver and that any driver would have to look away from the road ahead to see it.

The code of practice states "The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. " Despite this and none of the photographs of the vehicle showing any signs nearby and that it was dark the assessor found "the signage at the location is clear". Unless the evidence supplied to the assessor was different to that which was supplied to me i find it difficult to see how an independent person can decide that the burden of proof has been fulfilled.

2. The assessor has ignored that i have a lease.

The assessor has completely ignored that as a leaseholder i have rights, in contract, to park. This is either incompetence, a training issue or plain old fashioned corruption. They state
"The BPA COP also states 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. In reference to this I am satisfied the operator has provided a licence agreement confirming it is authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs to vehicles parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking. "

It is one thing to allow oneself to be misled by bad evidence but it is all together another issue to just ignore a point that has not been discussed in evidence. As well as being introduced in the appeal itself, in the follow up to the operators evidence i stated " They did not deal with the fact that i am a leaseholder and my lease does not require me to display a permit. My lease takes precedence over any deal they may or may not have with anyone other than myself.


The letter or authority is dated 2014 and even if dated later it does not indicate it covers the time of alleged contravention. The letter would not be evidence enough in any event."

It was brought home clearly.

3. Further to point 2, the assessor has said that they are satisfied on the evidence on the authority/contract point. Once again the evidence does not support this finding. The BPA code states

"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"

The letter of authority/contract supplied in my evidence pack fails on all bar 7.3 d. Nobody who makes an independent adjudication can miss that much without poor training, incompetence or plain old fashioned corruption. There are many decisions on the internet where section 7 failures mean the appeal was upheld.


4. Parking Eye v Beavis. I will say that although i fundamentally disagree that this is in anyway similar to that case i can see that some lazy assessors would thing Beavis, Parking that'll do even when the cases are virtual polar opposites as in this case.I'm not sure i would make a complaint on this point as a standalone item but feel it should be pointed out in light of the above.




Send to whoever sent the result, director@ispa.co.uk , aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

M1

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

Hi Mystery,

Thanks again for your response. I'm struggling to find who to send this to. I know you included emails but i received the original rejection from POPLA on their online portal, they say the only way to appeal now is the Citizens advice Bureau or seek legal aid.

I have emailed it to POPLA anyway, they have said I can make a complaint, but i don't think this will help stop MET charging me more if I do not pay.

Any advice?

Thanks

Sophie

I would like to lodge a formal complaint in the way my popla appeal has been decided.

The assessor has failed to produce an assessment which follows the standard which the BPA and Popla themselves have indicated with the result that the decision itself calls in to question the knowledge and skill of the assessor or the independence of the appeal handling.

I attach to this complaint my appeal and the decision as well as the BPA code of practice.


The BPA website states "As well as being judicially independent, POPLA now has an Independent Scrutiny Board; guaranteeing absolute independence"

The Popla website states
"How does the assessor make their decision?

The assessor will review the evidence supplied by both parties to establish what happened during the incident. If it is relevant to the specific appeal, the assessor will consider whether the parking operator has correctly abided by the British Parking Association Code of Practice and relevant law."

The areas of complaint are :-

1. The assessor has ignored the requirements of the COP with regards to signage.

The evidence pack supplied shows the entrance signage on slide 32. The picture clearly shows the signs do not face the driver and that any driver would have to look away from the road ahead to see it.

The code of practice states "The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. " Despite this and none of the photographs of the vehicle showing any signs nearby and that it was dark the assessor found "the signage at the location is clear". Unless the evidence supplied to the assessor was different to that which was supplied to me i find it difficult to see how an independent person can decide that the burden of proof has been fulfilled.

2. The assessor has ignored that i have a lease.

The assessor has completely ignored that as a leaseholder i have rights, in contract, to park. This is either incompetence, a training issue or plain old fashioned corruption. They state
"The BPA COP also states 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. In reference to this I am satisfied the operator has provided a licence agreement confirming it is authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs to vehicles parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking. "

It is one thing to allow oneself to be misled by bad evidence but it is all together another issue to just ignore a point that has not been discussed in evidence. As well as being introduced in the appeal itself, in the follow up to the operators evidence i stated " They did not deal with the fact that i am a leaseholder and my lease does not require me to display a permit. My lease takes precedence over any deal they may or may not have with anyone other than myself.


The letter or authority is dated 2014 and even if dated later it does not indicate it covers the time of alleged contravention. The letter would not be evidence enough in any event."

It was brought home clearly.

3. Further to point 2, the assessor has said that they are satisfied on the evidence on the authority/contract point. Once again the evidence does not support this finding. The BPA code states

"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"

The letter of authority/contract supplied in my evidence pack fails on all bar 7.3 d. Nobody who makes an independent adjudication can miss that much without poor training, incompetence or plain old fashioned corruption. There are many decisions on the internet where section 7 failures mean the appeal was upheld.


4. Parking Eye v Beavis. I will say that although i fundamentally disagree that this is in anyway similar to that case i can see that some lazy assessors would thing Beavis, Parking that'll do even when the cases are virtual polar opposites as in this case.I'm not sure i would make a complaint on this point as a standalone item but feel it should be pointed out in light of the above.




Send to whoever sent the result, director@ispa.co.uk , aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

M1

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Mystery,

Thanks again for your response. I'm struggling to find who to send this to. I know you included emails but i received the original rejection from POPLA on their online portal, they say the only way to appeal now is the Citizens advice Bureau or seek legal aid.

I have emailed it to POPLA anyway, they have said I can make a complaint, but i don't think this will help stop MET charging me more if I do not pay.

Any advice?

Thanks

Sophie

I would like to lodge a formal complaint in the way my popla appeal has been decided.

The assessor has failed to produce an assessment which follows the standard which the BPA and Popla themselves have indicated with the result that the decision itself calls in to question the knowledge and skill of the assessor or the independence of the appeal handling.

I attach to this complaint my appeal and the decision as well as the BPA code of practice.


The BPA website states "As well as being judicially independent, POPLA now has an Independent Scrutiny Board; guaranteeing absolute independence"

The Popla website states
"How does the assessor make their decision?

The assessor will review the evidence supplied by both parties to establish what happened during the incident. If it is relevant to the specific appeal, the assessor will consider whether the parking operator has correctly abided by the British Parking Association Code of Practice and relevant law."

The areas of complaint are :-

1. The assessor has ignored the requirements of the COP with regards to signage.

The evidence pack supplied shows the entrance signage on slide 32. The picture clearly shows the signs do not face the driver and that any driver would have to look away from the road ahead to see it.

The code of practice states "The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. " Despite this and none of the photographs of the vehicle showing any signs nearby and that it was dark the assessor found "the signage at the location is clear". Unless the evidence supplied to the assessor was different to that which was supplied to me i find it difficult to see how an independent person can decide that the burden of proof has been fulfilled.

2. The assessor has ignored that i have a lease.

The assessor has completely ignored that as a leaseholder i have rights, in contract, to park. This is either incompetence, a training issue or plain old fashioned corruption. They state
"The BPA COP also states 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. In reference to this I am satisfied the operator has provided a licence agreement confirming it is authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs to vehicles parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking. "

It is one thing to allow oneself to be misled by bad evidence but it is all together another issue to just ignore a point that has not been discussed in evidence. As well as being introduced in the appeal itself, in the follow up to the operators evidence i stated " They did not deal with the fact that i am a leaseholder and my lease does not require me to display a permit. My lease takes precedence over any deal they may or may not have with anyone other than myself.


The letter or authority is dated 2014 and even if dated later it does not indicate it covers the time of alleged contravention. The letter would not be evidence enough in any event."

It was brought home clearly.

3. Further to point 2, the assessor has said that they are satisfied on the evidence on the authority/contract point. Once again the evidence does not support this finding. The BPA code states

"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"

The letter of authority/contract supplied in my evidence pack fails on all bar 7.3 d. Nobody who makes an independent adjudication can miss that much without poor training, incompetence or plain old fashioned corruption. There are many decisions on the internet where section 7 failures mean the appeal was upheld.


4. Parking Eye v Beavis. I will say that although i fundamentally disagree that this is in anyway similar to that case i can see that some lazy assessors would thing Beavis, Parking that'll do even when the cases are virtual polar opposites as in this case.I'm not sure i would make a complaint on this point as a standalone item but feel it should be pointed out in light of the above.




Send to whoever sent the result, director@ispa.co.uk , aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

complaints@popla.co.uk although i don't think it was them as you were old popla, i think, and they are no longer around. In that case it would be BPA who are ultimately in charge of all popla and ISPA who are suppose to be in charge of standards and you have already emailed both.

CAB and legal aid are useless for you. If it goes to court you won't get legal aid for a trivial amount of around £100. (trivial in terms of what courts deal with not as in I'm rich who gives a toss about £100)

There are no reasons for MET to increase the charges.

M1

[sophieabrahamovitch]

Re: Met Parking

Hi Mystery,

Looks like i'm paying...

Sophie




Dear Sophie Abrahamovitch

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.

I have reviewed the case file, and I am satisfied that the evidence we were supplied with by both you and the operator has been reviewed in full, and that the decision has therfore been arrived at correctly.
Yours sincerely,
Siobhan Gooley
POPLA Team

complaints@popla.co.uk although i don't think it was them as you were old popla, i think, and they are no longer around. In that case it would be BPA who are ultimately in charge of all popla and ISPA who are suppose to be in charge of standards and you have already emailed both.

CAB and legal aid are useless for you. If it goes to court you won't get legal aid for a trivial amount of around £100. (trivial in terms of what courts deal with not as in I'm rich who gives a toss about £100)

There are no reasons for MET to increase the charges.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Met Parking

I would see if they take it to court, personally.

I'd also be tempted to chase the people who gave the rights to the space to you, including a letter before action if initial contact is fruitless for reimbursement.


You have to do what suits you though. The popla decision is a disgrace.

M1