Great Western Coffee Shop

If the APCOA jobsworths slap a ticket on me. What would be the 'offence'? (I use that term loosely, I played the ignoring the threatening letters game once before for parking just on a white line. Don't really want to do it again.)

MET Parking deceive motorists for years. DVLA stick fingers in ears and make la la la noises

One dogged motorist has unearthed a scam MET Parking have been operating for several years on the Chiltern railway.

Chiltern Railway car parks are railway property and railway byelaws apply. This means that drivers can be fined for breaching the byelaws, and that the fine is backed by statute. The flip side is that the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 schedule 4 does not apply as the car parks are not 'relevant land'; this means that the keeper is not liable - only the driver is. 'I was not driving' is an absolute defence, as long as you can prove this, or the judge believes you on the balance of probabilities if the proof is not conclusive.

However, MET Parking have been issuing huge numbers of tickets, trying to deceive the motorist that keeper liability applies when it does not. Obtaining money by false pretences is a criminal act.

One motorist realised something fishy was happening after he had successfully appealed several tickets to the independent appeals service, POPLA. When he tried to appeal a subsequent ticket, MET Parking said they had withdrawn the right to use POPLA as the ticket was issued under the railway byelaws. The motorist pointed out that this was not what the original charge said, and has been fighting to find the true situation ever since.

He asked the DVLA to investigate. After a few false starts they finally shifted reluctantly into gear, and found that MET Parking were acting incorrectly by stating keeper liability applied. They found that 1025 tickets had been incorrectly issued at the West Ruislip car park since 1 October 2012, which is when POFA 2012 commenced. Of these, 589 were still outstanding, which MET Parking then cancelled. Another 90 had been cancelled following appeals. However, the remaining 346 had already been paid, and the DVLA refused to make MET Parking refund the motorists.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. MET Parking have around 20 car parks on the Chiltern line alone, so the number of incorrectly issued tickets is likely to be tens of thousands, which means that MET parking may have trousered ^1,000,000 under false pretences.

The DVLA have to share responsibility for this mes up. Although they told the motorist they only knew of this situation in January 2014, this has turned out to be a lie; freedom of information requests showed they were dithering about what to do back in July 2013, and were fully aware what was going on.

They continued to pass on keeper information to MET parking without attempting to police the situation at all. Although in the past parking companies have been suspended from access for stating that keeper liability applied when it did not, the DVLA have of late taken a more business oriented approach to these transgressions. They now prefer to keep their snouts in the trough and the money flowing in, whatever the parking companies do. Wheras it seems that the DVLA feels a motorist can be penalised ^100 for being 1 minute late or have a wheel an inch over a line, the same does not apply for parking companies. Obtaining money under false pretences is perfectly acceptable as long as the parking company keeps the money rolling in. This cannot be right. The DVLA cannot keep absolving themselves of the responsibility to police the sector; there needs to be a balance, which currently is sadly lacking.

Both the BPA Ltd and the DVLA initially tried to bury this complaint and it was only through perseverance that anything happened at all.

The situation remains unresolved, with thousands of motorists out of pocket. It is a sorry state of affairs that civil servants can have such blatant disregard for the rights of motorists and are prepared to turn a blind eye to dodgy goings-on on an industrial scale.

If you have paid a parking ticket to MET Parking at a railway car park between 1 October 2012, and January 2014 then you should write to MET Parking for a refund. If they refuse, then the case officer at the DVLA you need to get in touch with is Liz Symods. If you feel your MP should be made aware what has been going on, then http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/ is a good reference site.

MET Parking
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE
Elizabeth.Symons@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Rail commuters are hit by up to 40,000 bogus parking fines: 'Pirates' accused of demanding money from commuters using the wrong law

• ^100 fines handed out when drivers outstayed permitted period at car parks belonging to Chiltern Railways
• MET Parking Services was using the wrong law to issue the parking tickets
• Company also issues fines on behalf of McDonald's car park users
• Firm, which manages car parks on line between Marylebone and Birmingham, admitted that 1,025 tickets were incorrectly issued
• DVLA earns ^10m a year from private parking firms for right to access its database

Parking ^pirates^ are accused of issuing thousands of bogus penalty notices to travellers using railway station car parks on a busy commuter line.
Fines of ^100 a time were handed out when drivers stayed beyond the permitted period at car parks belonging to Chiltern Railways. But MET Parking Services was using the wrong law to issue the tickets, and is now accused of demanding money under false pretences from as many as 40,000 commuters.

The firm, which manages car parks on the line between Marylebone and Birmingham, admitted that 1,025 tickets were incorrectly issued and that 679 still outstanding at the beginning of the year were cancelled. The tickets were issued using a law introduced in 2012 which banned the use of wheel clamping on private land, but allowed the owners to issue penalty notices. However railway car parks are covered by different byelaws.

Commuter Trevor Carvey took on MET after receiving a ticket in Ruislip, Middlesex. He used the Freedom of Information Act to discover MET was using automatic number plate recognition cameras to identify drivers via the DVLA database, then pursue them for payment ^ often with the threat of court action. ^MET and Chiltern have been using completely the wrong law to police these car parks,^ he said. ^Thousands of people have been given tickets under false pretences and they should be getting their money back.^

Mr Carvey said his attempts to persuade the British Parking Association (BPA) to take action against MET have been ignored. Last week the Mail revealed how MET also targeted McDonald^s customers with ^100 penalty notices for staying too long in its restaurant car parks. MET chased motorists using a debt recovery firm that has been declared ^unfit^ to operate by the Office of Fair Trading and a firm of solicitors shut down last year because of ^dishonesty^.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has promised an inquiry into cowboy parking firms following revelations in the Daily Mail. He said that the firms should be prosecuted if found to be breaking consumer protection laws.

Hospitals are under pressure to sack ^pirate^ parking squads after it emerged more than three quarters of NHS trusts use them to police their car parks.

Alex Shipp, who runs the Parking Prankster website, said up to 40,000 tickets may have been wrongly issued in Chiltern^s car parks. He believes the 1,025 tickets admitted to relate only to Ruislip between October 2012 and January this year. However MET is thought to have made the same mistake at all 21 of Chiltern^s car parks over the same period. ^We need a full investigation. The DVLA and BPA should require that all the motorists involved are properly compensated,^ he said. ^There is a very strong case to argue that this is a fraud and something the police should be looking at.^

The DVLA earns around ^10million a year from private parking companies for the right to access its computer database. A spokesman said: ^It is not within our powers to instruct private parking companies to offer refunds.^

A Chiltern Railways spokesman said: ^MET Parking manages all Chiltern Railways car parks. We work closely with them to ensure that our parking policy is fair and communicated clearly.^

MET refused to comment.

These scandalous fines, dished out by modern day highwaymen, are completely bogus.

Simply put all letters in the bin. The fines are not legally enforceable in any way. Besides, they cannot prove who was driving the car!

...if... the charge represents a genuine loss to the landowner.

A woman has been ordered by a sheriff to pay a private parking company £24,500 in unpaid charges.

Carly Mackie ignored hundreds of penalty notices for parking at Dundee's Waterfront without a permit, claiming they were unenforceable.

Ms Mackie said that she had a right to park in the area as she was living there at the time.

Sheriff George Way said the charges were from a "valid contract" and she was liable for them.

Vehicle Control Services (VCS) took the 28-year-old to court last year after she failed to pay £18,500 in private parking notices.




She had been living at a flat with her stepfather, who was a tenant and had a garage at the property.

Sheriff Way said Ms Mackie had parked outside the garage and would not accept the offer of a parking permit for a space nearby for £40 per month.

'Entirely misdirected'

In a written judgement, Sheriff Way said: "She admits she parked without a permit, on the property that the pursuers were contracted to protect.

"She had no better right or title to do so than any other interloper or stranger no matter what her belief might be."


What does the law say?

Parking tickets issued by private companies in private car parks are not fines, they can be classed as parking charge notices.

This is different from Penalty Charge Notices which are issued by council traffic wardens and the police. These are regulated fines, backed by legislation.

Private landowners and car parking firms do not have the power to issue Penalty Charge Notices

However, by parking in a restricted private area, a motorist can be considered to be agreeing to a contract with the landowner or car park operator, provided there is adequate signage warning of the charge.

Failing to pay can be seen as a breach of contract and the car parking firm can take the motorist to court to recover their losses.


The sheriff said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself" on both the law and "the contractual chain" in the case.

He said: "The defender is bound by that contract and incurred the parking charge on each occasion.

"The defender refused to pay the parking charges not because she was unaware of the parking scheme or the terms of the notices or the financial consequences of parking at any time, but because she did not believe that the charges were valid in law.

"The parking charges flow from a valid contract between the pursuers and the defender and she is liable for them."

but it seems PCNs can be enforced at court

Private parking tickets woman declared bankrupt

A Dundee woman ordered to pay a private parking company £24,500 in unpaid charges has been declared bankrupt.

Carly Mackie had ignored hundreds of parking tickets for leaving her car at Dundee's Waterfront without a permit.

Ms Mackie, 29, who now lives in Paisley, has debts of £37,546 according to Scotland's insolvency service Accountant in Bankruptcy.

Vehicle Control Services (VCS) took her to court last year after she failed to pay £18,500 in private parking notices.

Ms Mackie said that she had a right to park in the area as she was living there at the time and that the charges were unenforceable.

Sheriff George Way said the charges were from a "valid contract" and she was liable for them.

In a written judgement, the sheriff said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself" on both the law and "the contractual chain" in the case.

He said: "The parking charges flow from a valid contract between the pursuers and the defender and she is liable for them."

'Rogue' parking companies face government crackdown

"Rogue" parking companies will be banned from accessing driver data and issuing charges as part of plans to stop "unscrupulous operators".

The government has confirmed it will support new legislation aimed at raising standards among parking firms.

Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, said the legislation will provide "fair, clear and consistent" regulation of the parking industry.  It comes as firms issue almost 13 times more tickets than a decade ago.

Drivers' growing disquiet about the rules on parking are underlined by figures showing nearly 10,000 people approached the Citizens Advice Bureau for guidance on parking tickets last year.

There are complaints of inconsistent practices, substandard signage, confusing appeals processes and intimidating payment letters, said the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Conservative MP Sir Greg Knight's Parking (Code of Practice) Bill to tackle rogue parking operators is due for its second reading in the House of Commons on Friday, effectively guaranteeing its passage into law.

Firms which don't obey the rules will be blocked from accessing drivers' DVLA records.  This will prevent the firms from issuing charges, effectively forcing them out of the industry.

Mr Javid said drivers have suffered for too long "at the hands of dodgy parking firms".  He said: "That is why government is putting the brakes on these rogue operators and backing new laws that will put a stop to aggressive behaviour and provide a simpler way for drivers to appeal fines."

The department hopes motoring groups and other experts will help the Communities Secretary to develop the code of practice.

Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said the move would bring "some much-needed regulatory rigour to the world of private parking".  He added: "Drivers don't want a parking free-for-all, but they do want a system that is fair to all parties and that's what a code of practice set by government - rather than the industry itself - should bring about."