McDonald's & MET - almost a month later

cinereus · 18 September 2016 at 7:49PM

Redx wrote: »

your popla appeal wont be based on the above , so search out recent popla drafts over the last 4 months or so, nothing from before 2016

issues will be like

no landowner contract
poor or inadequate signage (fails the BPA CoP)
BPA CoP errors (especially clause #13)
NTK errors
POFA2012 errors
not the same as the Beavis case

Thanks for this (and to the other two posters as well).

Could you expand a little on what you mean by NTK errors and POFA2012 errors as I don't think I mentioned these in my original submissions.

Also, is there any point continuing to chase with McD's at this stage?

Cheers!

Carthesis · 19 September 2016 at 9:09AM

You need to compare the written Notice to Keeper you got through the post to the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), specifically Schedule 4, Paragraph 9.

This is a number list of all the information which - BY LAW (as in actual "illegal if they don't do it" law, not the made up law PPCs adhere to) - the NtK has to contain. It contains things like identifying the Creditor clearly, and specifying the charge etc. etc.

Look it up online and carefully compare the wording of PoFA2012 to the NtK. Some PPCs are far worse than others. MET I have no idea about, so you need to look at it and decide if anything is missing.

Also, if you've not had any joy with the local McDs manager, have you contacted the Head Office via social media and also by letter and email? Chief Exec public email addresses can be found in a number of locations on the internet. Write to them explaining the circumstances and see if, miraculously, the managers find the authority to deal with this issue for you.

Coupon-mad · 19 September 2016 at 8:21PM

cinereus wrote: »

Thanks for this (and to the other two posters as well).

Could you expand a little on what you mean by NTK errors and POFA2012 errors as I don't think I mentioned these in my original submissions.

You will find a few template POPLA appeal points now added recently in 'POPLA Decisions'.

cinereus · 4 October 2016 at 7:15PM

Carthesis wrote: »

You need to compare the written Notice to Keeper you got through the post to the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), specifically Schedule 4, Paragraph 9.

This is a number list of all the information which - BY LAW (as in actual "illegal if they don't do it" law, not the made up law PPCs adhere to) - the NtK has to contain. It contains things like identifying the Creditor clearly, and specifying the charge etc. etc.

These are the only points I've managed to find:

POFA2012, Schedule 4, para 9(2)(e): state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

Slight problem for (e)(i) in that it says the driver is liable to pay in full, and that the have the right to recover if not paid in full but there is no explicit invitation for the keeper to pay in lieu. Is this a goer?

POFA2012, Schedule 4, para 9(2)(f): warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

Does this have to be exactly after 28 days or not? The NTK says "after 29 days" not starting from 29 days.

POFA2012, Schedule 4, para 9(2)(h): identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

It says how to pay and who to make cheques out to but only explicitly identifies MET as the "creditor" in the appeals procedure section.

Are these points worth bundling together in a couple of NTK/POFA2012 paragraphs?

cinereus · 4 October 2016 at 11:01PM

Edited to add another point:

[the NtK doesn't] show the period of parking (only entry and exit), so that's a 'fail'. Neither do they show the amount of parking charge outstanding (the difference between what's been paid and what should have been paid for the actual period of parking), so another 'fail'.

Coupon-mad · 4 October 2016 at 11:04PM

Yep they are all worth including...what does the entire sentence say about 'after 29 days'?

cinereus · 5 October 2016 at 11:08AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep they are all worth including...what does the entire sentence say about 'after 29 days'?

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date this warning is given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Parking Charge Notice Issue Date), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.

Coupon-mad · 5 October 2016 at 2:06PM

I'd say that is correct, compliant as the date works out right.

cinereus · 5 October 2016 at 10:25PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'd say that is correct, compliant as the date works out right.

Should it not be after 28 days (i.e. 29 days or later)?

Clearly not a major issue, but "after 28 days" = "29 days or later" != "after 29 days". Anyway, apart from that shall I post up my first draft?

Coupon-mad · 5 October 2016 at 10:34PM

I don't think that is worth arguing, stick with more obvious NTK wording breaches & omissions. Yes, show us all your draft please.

McDonald's & MET - almost a month later

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free