Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 19th Aug 16, 4:36 PM
    • 2,622Posts
    • 912Thanks
    cinereus
    McDonald's & MET - almost a month later
    • #1
    • 19th Aug 16, 4:36 PM
    McDonald's & MET - almost a month later 19th Aug 16 at 4:36 PM
    The registered keeper got a Parking Charge Notice from MET following 106 mins in a 90 min limit McD's car park. Whoever was driving broke down and was waiting for assistance which is why it took so long. They paid for food with a credit card.

    I've read the newbie sticky twice now and can't make heads or tail of it with all the info scattered all over the place and strange sentence construction.

    Postal PCN ? (i.e. with no mention of any windscreen ticket at all, whether seen or not):

    A postal PCN or NTK might be headed up 'Notice to Keeper' or 'Reminder' or 'Charge Notice' or it may even be a random letter from a debt collector - it is still your Notice to Keeper, in effect, if it is the first letter to arrive.

    Compare your postal PCN to paragraph 8 or 9 of POFA 2012 (linked below), depending if there was a windscreen ticket issued first or not. It's an excerpt from a law but it really isn't difficult, please don't just ask the regulars here to check your NTK for you without making an attempt to check it yourself, unless you really need help to read the simple bullet points in paragraph 8 (NTK which follows a windscreen ticket) or paragraph 9 (NTK which serves as the first PCN).

    Look for omissions in wording or late arrival of the NTK and include those points in your appeal because as the registered keeper you can argue 'no keeper liability' if the PPC have not followed the requirements for a NTK. However that does not make the ticket 'illegal' it just demotes it to one which is issued under 'old rules and is only potentially aimed at an - unidentified of course! - driver.

    An appeal can be submitted by the keeper after a postal NTK even if the first opportunity has expired, after a windcsreen PCN.
    "An appeal can be submitted by the keeper after a postal NTK even if the first opportunity has expired, after a windcsreen [sic] PCN."

    Letter is dated almost month ago and was issued within 7 days. First discount date has passed, 3 days until 28 day cut-off. Keeper was away for a month hence tardiness in finding it.

    Can the keeper submit an appeal or not? The tacked on "after a windscreen PCN" makes the sentence unparseable.

    I assume you guys know the MET letters well but there's no mention I can find of whether these are "correct" under the POFA 2012 (although by my reading it seems fine apart from an omission from para 8(2)a and the fact it never mentions either a Keeper or Registered Keeper).

    MET are BPA members so, according to the sticky, it would seem the next step is to appeal to MET? Why then do all the linked successes related to MET & McD's suggest contacting the manager first?

    So ignoring the advice to contact McD's manager or this unparseable clause about a windscreen notice, I assume I write a BPA appeal and then go to POPLA starting with this letter?:

    Date


    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

    Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,
    Thanks for any help. If we are not familiar with the current wording of MET notices, I can copy it all out here. And FWIW, no signage was noticed whilst there.
    Last edited by cinereus; 19-08-2016 at 4:38 PM.
Page 3
    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 13th Oct 16, 4:14 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    Complain to the BPA.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thanks.

    MET have now told me they do not send out new POPLA codes thereby leaving me with no means to appeal. POPLA adamantly refuse to accept appeals without a code and MET refuse to issue a valid code. What next apart from complain to the BPA? Just email my representations to POPLA?! I'm going to be out of the country for a few months so a court appearance would be very inconvenient.
    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 13th Oct 16, 4:26 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    Just sent an email to BPA and went through the CoP:

    Code of practice 4:
    Any organisation or person applying for BPA or AOS membership must: • agree to follow the decisions of POPLA, the independent appeals service.
    In this case, POPLA said that a new code should be issued and MET have refused.

    22.12.1 Within all Appeal Rejection Letters, and in order to comply with the EU ADR Directive, the following wording should be used;
    • You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. [Insert standard operator text to appeal to POPLA, including 28 day time limit for doing so, the POPLA verification code and the POPLA website address]
    Nada.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Oct 16, 6:24 PM
    • 46,883 Posts
    • 60,211 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You will get nowhere now, you missed the POPLA deadline so go back to pre-POPLA old rules and just ignore the letters from now on. MET do not sue people, but if you did get court papers, come back and we will help (defendable, similar to that POPLA appeal).

    Yes, ignore them, no contact, nothing.

    Please join our campaign of complaint about this industry's conduct to the Government:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5524754&page=6

    In your case I would wait for the BPA to fob you off, then use that pathetic email to complain about THEM as well to Mrs May and your MP, pointing out that the BPA are an old boys' club who are at pains to tell consumers that they are 'not a regulator' but they appear to relish the way Parliament assumes they are.

    The BPA and (considered even worse) the IPC use their apparent 'status' to lobby for their grubby members' interests alone. Parliament lap up everything the BPA says and swallowed hook, line and sinker some utter bilge when the BPA lobbied to get 'keeper liability' into the POFA 2012 (Schedule 4 being an insult to consumers and a widely-considered 'scammers rights' piece of legislation). compare Parliament's cluelessness with the informed and victimised British public, who know that there is evidence that the entire industry is rotten. Read and show your MP and Mrs May/Mr Corbyn, the Plain Language Commission's article on a BPA member's antics at a Derbyshire Hospital:

    http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/plcdev/app/public/system/pdf_files/files/000/000/191/original/QueensHospitalEd1copy.pdf

    That contains this:
    Quote:
    "The BPA does little to curb its members excesses. Its previous investigations into similar concerns have tended to produce reports that exonerate the parking firms. As a private company the BPA is held accountable only to its members. given its Hypocrisy about 'raising standards', its pious annual adoption of a 'presidents charity' which it urges members to support ( using money taken from drivers ) and the way it seems to retain the trust of government ministers, the BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"

    A Trade Body for ex-clampers and money-grabbers is no better than leaving a parking firm in charge (self regulation) which will never work. No wonder consumers get short shrift and are certainly not (BPA spiel coming up) 'at the heart of our thinking'.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-10-2016 at 6:34 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 14th Oct 16, 1:24 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    You will get nowhere now, you missed the POPLA deadline so go back to pre-POPLA old rules and just ignore the letters from now on. MET do not sue people, but if you did get court papers, come back and we will help (defendable, similar to that POPLA appeal).

    Yes, ignore them, no contact, nothing.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hang on so now it just gets left in limbo? Is there any hit to my credit rating or similar?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Oct 16, 2:51 PM
    • 13,123 Posts
    • 20,461 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    In limbo for 6 years - the time available for MET to pursue you through the small claims court. They are not currently litigious, but neither were ParkingEye 3 years ago, now they are issuing 30,000 court cases per year.

    http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_Parking_Services.html

    Only 'hit' on your credit rating is if this goes to court, costs are awarded against you by the judge and you fail to pay by the due date.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Oct 16, 3:28 PM
    • 46,883 Posts
    • 60,211 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hang on so now it just gets left in limbo? Is there any hit to my credit rating or similar?
    Originally posted by cinereus
    No. This was always the case pre-POPLA, and the sky didn't fall in. It is also the case with any IPC firm, as there is no appeal worth trying with those (IAS being considered a kangaroo court by the great British public who have gone through that mill).

    However some PPCs are litigious and the greed is getting out of control so they need a slap down from the Government sharpish!

    Hence why you need to write to Mrs May, Mr Corbyn and your MP because the DCLG are currently considering how to reign in private parking firms. Focus their minds on what people are going through for years to escape 'credit clamping'!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 18th Nov 16, 4:03 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    Thanks.

    MET have now told me they do not send out new POPLA codes thereby leaving me with no means to appeal. POPLA adamantly refuse to accept appeals without a code and MET refuse to issue a valid code. What next apart from complain to the BPA? Just email my representations to POPLA?! I'm going to be out of the country for a few months so a court appearance would be very inconvenient.
    Originally posted by cinereus
    lol, came back from a month away to find they sent another POPLA code after all!

    Submitting now...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Nov 16, 4:56 PM
    • 46,883 Posts
    • 60,211 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hang on, is it the same as before?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 18th Nov 16, 5:01 PM
    • 2,429 Posts
    • 2,447 Thanks
    DoaM
    Same what? Code? Appeal wording?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Nov 16, 5:48 PM
    • 46,883 Posts
    • 60,211 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Appeal wording. It is a while back so I've forgotten!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 9th Dec 16, 2:30 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    Holy

    Just received a 37 page dossier from MET! Is this normal?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Dec 16, 5:06 PM
    • 46,883 Posts
    • 60,211 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes - perfectly normal - that's nothing and it's all template stuff, repetition, drivel about the Beavis case and/or the BPA CoP and dividers and covers sheets and photos. I've seen hundreds of evidence packs and I'm disappointed if they are under twenty pages, as it suggests the PPC haven't tried!

    ParkingEye send 50 pages sometimes and this one from Care Parking is 45:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71722750#post71722750

    Your job is to read the bluff & bluster and put some bullet point comments in within days (not restating your defence nor adding new evidence). This is evidence comments stage and once you scratch the surface you will expose the rubbish in those pages!

    Tell us what you find.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 11th Dec 16, 6:31 AM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    Your job is to read the bluff & bluster and put some bullet point comments in within days (not restating your defence nor adding new evidence). This is evidence comments stage and once you scratch the surface you will expose the rubbish in those pages!

    Tell us what you find.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks! But within a few days?! That's going to be a big struggle, is it necessary?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Dec 16, 8:55 AM
    • 13,123 Posts
    • 20,461 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thanks! But within a few days?! That's going to be a big struggle, is it necessary?
    Originally posted by cinereus
    Miss the opportunity at your own risk. As in a court case, anything not refuted/rebuffed might be taken by POPLA as you not disagreeing with the claimant's assertions.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 11th Dec 16, 4:30 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    Should I post the evidence pack here too?

    And can you clarify what sort of tone I should be taking in the bullet points if I cannot merely restate my original representations?

    Thanks
    Last edited by cinereus; 11-12-2016 at 4:49 PM.
    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 11th Dec 16, 5:22 PM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    First draft:

    1. MET claim that a new POPLA code was issued “as a gesture of goodwill”. This is not a correct representation of what happened. In actual fact, the POPLA code was received on 22 September although the letter was dated 5 September. Nowhere on this letter was there any mention of a time limit for using the code or any expiry date. This is directly in breach of BPA Code of Practice 22.12.1 that states 1 states that "Within all Appeal Rejection Letters, and in order to comply with the EU ADR Directive, the following wording should be used; You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. [Insert standard operator text to appeal to POPLA, including 28 day time limit for doing so, the POPLA verification code and the POPLA website address]”. At the time, both MET and POPLA were contacted on on premium rate lines and they said that, despite this noncompliance with the BPA CoP, they would not allow me to make any representations. MET claim that their “Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act in all respects”. This is not accurate.
    2. MET claim that they “have the rights under PoFA to pursue the registered keeper”. This is not strictly true in this instance and they are reminded of the citations made in the representations under the heading “2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge”.
    3. MET have been put to strict proof of Landowner Authority but have neglected to provide this as they decided not to provide a copy of their unredacted contract. They have not met the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP.
    4. MET have said that the terms and conditions are “clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park” making note that the “principle term” [sic] is repeated twice (actually, it is repeated once). However, contrary to this claim, the evidence they produce undermines their own case as it singularly fails to demonstrate that the signs are sufficiently prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and that there is sufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. Again, attention is drawn to the specifics of POPLA decision 5960956830, POFA Schedule 4, Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106.
    5. Regarding grace periods, MET have still failed to demonstrate the reliability of their timings despite a request for this to be shown. MET have also interpreted the BPA CoP incorrectly. The CoP allows time to read the signs before deciding to stay and park. In addition, the CoP allows a minimum ten minutes grace period to leave the car park. In this instance, the driver overstayed by a total of a mere 16 minutes according to the timings produced by the claimant. Allowing for points 13.2 and 13.4, this clearly falls within the BPA-authorised minimum grace period. The PCN is in breach of the CoP and should never have been issued. Regardless, de minimis should be applied in this case.
    6. Under heading 6, MET misspell my name and appear to make the false claim that they need not comply with the BPA CoP Section B making no attempt to demonstrate compliance.
    7. Under heading 7, MET curiously withdraw their claim that staff were not aware of the breakdown. Previously, they attempted to argue that this was not the case. Although they previously made false assertions about the breakdown and available evidence for this, they are now attempting to downplay this aspect of the representations. In actual fact, they are incorrect in claiming that I or the driver or the car got the vehicle running again. If they were to refer to their CCTV footage from the site on the day in question, they will have ample proof that this was not the case.
    8. MET continue to claim that the charge is neither “extravagant nor unconscionable”. They however do not go as far to claim that punishing a driver for merely a few extra minutes dealing with an unforeseen breakdown is neither extravagant not unconscionable. It’s suspected that they would not be able to make this claim without any intellectual dishonesty.
    9. MET seem to deliberately misunderstand the representations regarding the administration charge. They admit that passing on credit or debit card charges made by a bank or a card processing company would constitute levying an illegal surcharge. However, they simultaneously contract themselves by making the ludicrous argument that passing on an administration charge from a back office card processing company is fundamentally different to card charges from a card processing company. They also fail to demonstrate that the charge they do levy is in proportion to the charge from their provider and that they are not simply trying to extract additional profit. The simple fact is MET are in breach of maximum ceiling given in the BPA CoP as well as the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Dec 16, 6:16 PM
    • 46,883 Posts
    • 60,211 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's good.

    Might be too long for the portal character limit, if so do NOT submit it. Check first, see if it gets chopped!

    If so, you will need to boil it down a bit because I think comments put in on the POPLA portal are more likely to be read than an emailed version (just from my experience). You can shorten the Act to 'POFA' and Code of Practice to 'CoP' everywhere, and use other acronyms like 'NTK' instead of Notice to Keeper, remove repetition etc.

    This bit needs to be in point #2 not point #1:

    MET claim that their “Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act in all respects”. This is not accurate.
    Here you have a typo repetition:

    This is directly in breach of BPA Code of Practice 22.12.1 that states 1 states that

    BTW if they have shown NO proof of landowner authority, not even a Witness Statement or 'Agreement' then you will win!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Dec 16, 6:32 PM
    • 13,123 Posts
    • 20,461 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    6. Under heading 6, MET misspell my name and appear to make the false claim that they need not comply with the BPA CoP Section B making no attempt to demonstrate compliance.
    Not sure how the misspelling of your name and that they claim not to need to comply with Section B of the CoP come together here?

    A mere typo in your name isn't likely to be a showstopper.

    7. Under heading 7, MET curiously withdraw their claim that staff were not aware of the breakdown. Previously, they attempted to argue that this was not the case. Although they previously made false assertions about the breakdown and available evidence for this, they are now attempting to downplay this aspect of the representations. In actual fact, they are incorrect in claiming that I or the driver or the car got the vehicle running again. If they were to refer to their CCTV footage from the site on the day in question, they will have ample proof that this was not the case.
    Was reference to this covered in your original appeal, or is it new evidence? If it's new, POPLA won't consider it.

    9. MET seem to deliberately misunderstand the representations regarding the administration charge.
    Again, as above, was this raised by you originally in your POPLA appeal?

    See if others want to comment.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • cinereus
    • By cinereus 12th Dec 16, 12:50 AM
    • 2,622 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    cinereus
    Thanks for this guys...

    That's good.

    Might be too long for the portal character limit, if so do NOT submit it. Check first, see if it gets chopped!

    If so, you will need to boil it down a bit because I think comments put in on the POPLA portal are more likely to be read than an emailed version (just from my experience). You can shorten the Act to 'POFA' and Code of Practice to 'CoP' everywhere, and use other acronyms like 'NTK' instead of Notice to Keeper, remove repetition etc.

    BTW if they have shown NO proof of landowner authority, not even a Witness Statement or 'Agreement' then you will win!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    They showed a few pages of the contract but not the full unredacted version I requested.

    Not sure how the misspelling of your name and that they claim not to need to comply with Section B of the CoP come together here?

    A mere typo in your name isn't likely to be a showstopper.

    Was reference to this covered in your original appeal, or is it new evidence? If it's new, POPLA won't consider it.

    Again, as above, was this raised by you originally in your POPLA appeal?

    See if others want to comment.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    It's certainly not a showstopper or a legal point in any way and for sure I can cut it out, but it's representative of the lack of care they take in throwing this all together.

    None is new evidence - all was mentioned either in the first or the second letter.

    I'll leave it another day or so for further comments then submit it all.

    Thanks again.
    Last edited by cinereus; 12-12-2016 at 11:20 PM.
    • DollyDee
    • By DollyDee 12th Dec 16, 10:09 AM
    • 710 Posts
    • 799 Thanks
    DollyDee
    Quoted from your last paragraph - Item 9

    "However, they simultaneously contract themselves by making the ludicrous argument that passing on an administration charge from a back office card processing company is fundamentally different to card charges from a card processing company. "

    Should "contract" be "contradict"?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,350Posts Today

7,953Users online

Martin's Twitter