Met PCN- late demand for £100

The_Deep wrote: »

Apcoa ignored my son in law's appeal last December. I complained like mad to all and sundry and they finally issued a PoPla code late last month. No explanation, no apology.

Send a written complaint to your local Trading Standards Office as well as those mentioned in post 2.

Hi, We don't have a Trading Standards Office so I guess I need to complain to the Citizens' Advice Bureau?

On your advice I emailed the BPA complaining about MET Parking Services, they responded back very quickly and asked if I had proof of posting my 'appeal' letter to MET, I simply said that the date of posting was the date of the letter.

I also wrote this to MET- See enclosed correspondence to the British Parking Association.

"Be aware that as you did not respond to my 7 May letter, you denied me the opportunity to appeal, consequently complaints have been raised against you to the BPA, DVLA, The land owner, Trading Standards, my local MP, I may well also lobby the Prime Minister."

I thought then that MET would respond and say that as I didn't have proof of posting that there was no evidence to prove that I had sent the 'appeal' to them and I would be denied a POPLA code. Anyway a couple of days ago a letter arrived from MET (strangely dated 23 July!). They said-


" We note that you did not receive our rejection of representation sent 31st May 2017 (I enclose a copy for your reference) and did not have the chance to pay at the discounted rate. We have on this occasion as a goodwill gesture reset the charge to a discounted rate of £50 to be paid within 14 days of this letter. I have also reissued a POPLA code for you..."

In fact they enclosed two copy letters, one dated 17 May which requested further evidence (bear in mind that my 'appeal' to the PCN was very detailed), the other dated 31 May.

The fact that I didn't receive either letter from them makes me very suspicious, the fact that they are now offering 'goodwill' is unexpected indeed and odd from a parking company!

I don't know what you guys think but I get the impression that something doesn't add up here and that it's maybe only because I wrote to the BPA that they responded in this way. I guess that as they themselves didn't have POP for their letters that they were obliged to respond as they did particularly with BPA looking on. The very fact that they put todays date on a letter sent out last week gives a clue as to how poor they are at getting things right.

I'm still waiting to hear back from Mc Donald's but I am now going to make a POPLA appeal and and home in on poor signage which does not comply with the BPA code of conduct. I'll include loads of other relevant points as well as the two previous appeals were upheld.

UPDATE

I got a reply from Mc Donald's but not that helpful partly because we now have a POPLA appeal in progress.

I submitted a long appeal statement and last week POPLA emailed to say that MET Parking Services had submitted their case and oddly offered me the opportunity to respond.

There was a link to their words which opened fine, but the link to their photos did not so I had to twice request POPLA to resend, eventually on Friday they sent a PDF which shows the operator's photos and I have included a Dropbox link to it below. I would like some advice please on how to respond now as the MPS written response has addressed some of my main points.

I think the case hangs on the signage and in particular the absence of a large sign at the entrance as required by the BPA Code of Practice. There is a contract letter from Mc Donalds which requires that "MET to act, at all times, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice...".

The one they mark as their entrance sign is not at the entrance and does not comply with the Code, it doesn't even have an ANPR warning or logo on it and no charging information.

You will see that it has a 2013 date stamp also so they couldn't even be bothered to take an up to date one.

The exit photo has a clip of the front number plate and my surname is misspelled at one point so it shows how sloppy they are.

Do you think I should really home in on the lack of entrance signage and not mention anything else?

This is the link to their case submission, Sections A and E are the most relevant ones.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/820l70u92g5ns0v/MP%20POPLA%20submission%20%28redacted%20information%20copy%29.pdf?dl=0

Umkomaas wrote: »

Your vehicle has been captured by their ANPR camera before it has reached the entrance sign, so either they are capturing you before you enter the car park, or their entrance sign is not at the entrance. They can't have it both ways!


You need to also comment on the amount of tiny print on their other signs, especially the virtual hidden level of parking charge. The Supreme Court in Beavis accepted that the signage their formed a contract with the motorist especially as the 'penalty' was very clearly displayed.

Check out ParkingEye signs on Google images and embed in your reply the image where £85 is shown in significantly larger font than that used on the rest of the sign. Compare it with the MET version where the font size of the 'penalty' is the same as the rest of the wording.

Also check out 'Lord Denning's Red Hand' statement and build it into your rebuttal.

See if others want to add anything if there's still time to meet the POPLA 7-day deadline for your rebuttal.

Thanks for your time and thanks re your assessment, it's very kind of you. POPLA emailed first on 29th but only sent the MP PDF on 31st so I have a few days yet although I will aim to submit at end of today or tomorrow latest.