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
    • gazza123456
    • By gazza123456 3rd Oct 17, 4:33 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 1Thanks
    gazza123456
    Lost popla appeal v met parking at mcdonalds
    • #1
    • 3rd Oct 17, 4:33 PM
    Lost popla appeal v met parking at mcdonalds 3rd Oct 17 at 4:33 PM
    hi
    just looking for any advice. Have lost popla appeal v met parking. Overstayed at McDonalds and caught on camera. Did all the stock defence with court case evidence but still have come up the loser.

    Reasons for the Assessor’s determination: As the motorists exceed the maximum free parking time, the have not met the terms and conditions of the car park. The signage at the site states “THIS CAR PARK IS FOR THE USE OF MCDONALDS’S CUSTOMER WHILST ON THE PREMISES ONLY. MAXIMUM STAY IS 90 MINUES. Parking Charge: Up to £100”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the vehicle was at the car park for one hour 49 minutes, 19 minutes longer than allowed. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to exceeding the maximum free stay. The appellant states the operator does have authority from the landowner to operate on the land.
    Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to
    have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether
    the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.
    The operator has provided a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner. The contract
    commenced 31 August 2010, for an initial nine month, and on a rolling basis thereafter. Despite the
    appellant’s comments I am satisfied the operator have authority to operate on the land.
    The appellant states the PCN is an invoice for payment, and should include an element of VAT. The
    appellant states the PCN does not include a VAT number.
    I note the appellant’s comments, however the PCN is not an invoice so there is no requirement to include
    a VAT number.
    The appellant has stated that POPLA upheld an identical appeal in January 2014.
    Each appeal is assessed on its own individual basis; therefore the outcome of a previous appeal is
    irrelevant.
    The appellant states the NTK is non complaint, as it does not identify the creditor and not simply name
    them.
    I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however, by the operate naming the creditor on the PCN I am
    satisfied they have identified the creditor correctly.
    If a Parking Operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in
    accordance with the requirements of the PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the operators evidence, I am
    satisfied the provisions of PoFA 2012 have been complied with to transfer the liability to the registered
    keeper.
    The appellant has stated the operator has not complied with all of the sub sections of section 21 of the
    BPA Code of Practice.
    Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states’
    “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as
    long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras
    for.”
    The signage displayed within the car park do feature a camera logo and state “Patrols and/or automatic
    number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras monitor vehicle activity in the this private car park.
    Photographic and video evidence may be taken”. I satisfied the operator has made it clear that camera
    technology is in place to determine the duration of stay of vehicles.
    Section 21.2 states,
    “Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
    notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure
    that it is appropriate to take action.”
    Section 21.3 states,
    21.3 “You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need
    to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The
    processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our
    agents”.
    In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera
    systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in “good working order” and that the
    data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate.
    Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the
    technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. As the appellant has not provided
    evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate.
    Section 21.4 states,
    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
    process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    • be registered with the Information Commissioner
    • keep to the Data Protection Act
    • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    • follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR
    cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks”
    I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however they have not provided any evidence that
    demonstrates the operator has not complied with any of the points raised in section 21.4. Therefore I will
    work on the basis that the operator has fully complied with section 21.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.
    Section 21.5 states,
    21.3 “If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you
    have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking
    event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the
    Schedule (in particular paragraph 9)”.
    As stated previously the NTK issued fully complies with PoFA 2012.
    The appellant states the operator has not explained how the terms and conditions were breached; the
    appellant states the photographs provided are not of sufficient quality to prove any breach.
    After reviewing the PCN, I am satisfied that it sufficiently states the circumstances that caused the PCN to
    be issued. The PCN clearly shows the date and time of the vehicle entering and exiting the site. With the
    amount of the maximum stay and the total time. I am satisfied the operator could not make this any
    clearer.
    The appellant states the amount of the PCN is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it is an unlawful
    penalty, and no contract was formed between the driver and operator due to inadequate signage.
    In regards to the amount of the PCN, signage and being a penalty. The legality of parking charges has
    been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the
    case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held
    that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is
    conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its
    purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount.
    Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the
    charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable.
    Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded:
    “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in
    charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of thelandowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The
    interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate
    scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having
    regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park
    and the clear wording of the notices.”
    As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider
    the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to
    make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of
    Practice continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so
    that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must
    be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and
    understand”.
    In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity
    that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that
    the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows:
    “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by:
    (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in
    regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
    (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which:
    (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
    (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”.
    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use
    when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location.
    Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of
    the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring
    the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. This is because the site has 10 signs, placed at the
    entrance and throughout. The signage is in clear view of all areas of the site.
    Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this
    instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the
    location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the
    charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable.
    While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the
    Supreme Court.It is the duty of the motorist to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood
    the terms and conditions. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the
    terms and conditions.
    As they exceed the maximum free stay, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions.
    As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 3rd Oct 17, 4:38 PM
    • 16,936 Posts
    • 21,065 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 3rd Oct 17, 4:38 PM
    • #2
    • 3rd Oct 17, 4:38 PM
    only thing to do now would be to respond to any LBC or MCOL within the next 6 years , where GRACE PERIODS will be a major feature of any future defence (two grace periods , one before and one after)

    it doesnt look like you stressed clause #13 of the BPA CoP strongly enough
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 3rd Oct 17, 6:08 PM
    • 7,424 Posts
    • 6,473 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 3rd Oct 17, 6:08 PM
    • #3
    • 3rd Oct 17, 6:08 PM
    Did you argue that this may well be an unfair term in a consumer contract.


    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

    The last McD I went into was in France and it took me at least 20 minutes to master the computerised menu. There was then a wait for the food, and after I had my burger I fancied an ice cream, we were there for about an hour and a quarter. If you were with kids it could take longer,

    How can you agree to only stay for 90 minutes if they are short of staff and service is slow?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • gazza123456
    • By gazza123456 3rd Oct 17, 6:59 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    gazza123456
    • #4
    • 3rd Oct 17, 6:59 PM
    • #4
    • 3rd Oct 17, 6:59 PM
    thanks for the comments.....thats 2 angles anyway to pursue if MET decides to go to court. ive now written to mcdonalds to complain about it.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 3rd Oct 17, 7:36 PM
    • 2,393 Posts
    • 2,917 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #5
    • 3rd Oct 17, 7:36 PM
    • #5
    • 3rd Oct 17, 7:36 PM
    may be time to leave feedback for them .......

    faceace .... tripadvisor ... twitter .....

    it can help focus their minds

    Ralph
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 3rd Oct 17, 7:45 PM
    • 2,586 Posts
    • 3,848 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #6
    • 3rd Oct 17, 7:45 PM
    • #6
    • 3rd Oct 17, 7:45 PM
    I note the appellant’s comments, however the PCN is not an invoice

    What is it then?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 3rd Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    • 15,948 Posts
    • 24,740 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 3rd Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    • #7
    • 3rd Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    thanks for the comments.....thats 2 angles anyway to pursue if MET decides to go to court. ive now written to mcdonalds to complain about it.
    Originally posted by gazza123456
    Here’s another angle to consider about MET deciding to take you to court.

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

    You’d be their very first. MET offering up their virginity to you. How very special is that?
    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.
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

1,174Posts Today

5,744Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • RT @thismorning: With his last deals of the year, @MartinSLewis wishes us all a 'very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a wonderful and?

  • Follow Martin