Author Topic: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY  (Read 90 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

User1999999

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Dear All,

I the keeper of the vehicle have been issue a PCN from MET parking services for an alleged contravention at the BP stansted. I appealed on the basis that I was not driving on the day in question and am therefore not liable for the penalty, nor am I liable to name the driver. I also don't believe a notice to driver was sent out. Is this not also a breach as they have to wait a 28 day grace period after issuing a NtD before issuing the NtK?

I may be wrong but the petrol station is on airport land and so I think the laws around issuing PCNs may differ than when done on private land?

I have 3 days to submit the POPLA appeal and any help on how to structure it would be greatly appreciated.

The original PCN - https://imgur.com/a/baHlUkq

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


The Rookie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Warwickshire
    • View Profile
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2024, 01:57:15 pm »
I also don't believe a notice to driver was sent out.
Of course it wasn't, how could it when they don't know who was driving? (Fails the common sense test).
NtD's are those attached to a car while it's parked and are not needed to hold the keeper liable, an NtK 'can' do that.

However the basic point you should have used is that there is never keeper liability on not relevant land, the location is not relevant land as byelaws apply.
There are motorists who have been scammed and those who are yet to be scammed!

User1999999

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2024, 03:48:21 pm »
I disputed a PCN from APCOA at Heathrow airport and they dismissed it. This was the paragraph I used

"This Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") was issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I am appealing as such. Heathrow Airport (including the drop-off zone) is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (as it is covered by airport bye-laws), so the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Furthermore, even if (which is not the case) the drop off zone is relevant land, the PCN does not comply with the requirements of the POFA, Schedule 4, paragraph 9. As there is no legal requirement for the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.

APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'. If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for APCOA’s own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency."

Can I essentially just make a few changes to make this read for MET and Stansted rather than APCOA and Heathrow?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2024, 04:55:55 pm »
That's an appeal to the operator and it is what you should have sent initially to MET with a few tweaks regarding the location. The same argument will be used in the POPLA appeal but you should also throw in the kitchen sink in a POPLA appeal as you only need win on a single point whereas the operator has to successfully rebut all your points.

Your POPLA appeal should include the following points which are then expanded on individually:

1. The NtK was issued for an alleged breach of contract by the driver on land under statutory control. Land under statutory control is not relevant land and therefore the operator cannot rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold the keeper liable.

2. The operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing was the driver. As only the driver is liable due to the previous point, the operator is put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing was the driver. As the keeper, there is no legal obligation for them to identify the driver and they will not be doing so.

You then throw in all the other items such as signage, no landholder authority and so on.

You are appealing as the keeper. The only way that MET could know that the keeper was also the driver is if the keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise.

The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection, not 28. So, you may have a few more days to put your POPLA appeal together. Do a search for POPLA appeals and take any bits that can be used in your appeal.

If you want further advice, show us what you have put together before you send it in order to be able to provide a critique and suitable advice.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2024, 04:58:50 pm by b789 »
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

User1999999

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2024, 10:08:24 am »
As im unsure of the signage im not sure I can use that in the appeal?
this is what I have so far:

This Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") was issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I am appealing as such. BP Stansted is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (as it is covered by airport bye-laws), so the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Furthermore, even if (which is not the case) the BP station is relevant land, the PCN does not comply with the requirements of the POFA, Schedule 4, paragraph 9. As there is no legal requirement for the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.

MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable. As a matter of fact and law, MET (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'. If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET’s own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.


Does that cover landholder authority sufficiently.

Just want to say thank you very much for the replies, its been so useful!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2024, 10:11:58 am by User1999999 »

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2024, 10:46:20 am »
Is this bit true? "The registered keeper was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency."

There is no need to lie. You need to understand that the keeper and the driver are two separate entities in law. You can be either, both or neither.

MET does not know who the driver is unless the keeper tells them, inadvertently or otherwise. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver.

So, you are appealing as the keeper, irrespective of whether you were also the driver or not. You are not required to admit to being the driver. This is not a criminal matter where that obligation is different. This is civil matter.

So, please simplify that appeal to this. No need for embellishment or lying:

I am the registered keeper. MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land' and BP Stansted in on that land.

If Stansted Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under airport bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2024, 11:24:08 am »
There is no need to lie.
Indeed - definitely don't lie. If you were unfortunate enough for the matter to progress to court, lying would at best ruin your credibility, and at worst turn the matter into a much more serious one. Don't provide any unnecessary information, but remain truthful.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2024, 11:45:44 am »
Of course, if the keeper was not the driver, then there is no problem and it could be stated. The way to beat these scammers is on technicalities without the need to lie about anything.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

User1999999

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2024, 09:52:37 pm »
Truthfully I was not the driver. I'd like to say thank you both very much for the assistance! I just received an email from POPLA and they've upheld the appeal!
Like Like x 1 View List

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2024, 09:56:04 pm »
Did MET pull out or did it go to the assessor?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: MET Parking PCN - Overstayed permitted stay - BP Stansted CM24 1PY
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2024, 01:11:29 am »
When was the POPLA appeal submitted?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.