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
    • Jon_R
    • By Jon_R 13th Feb 18, 2:24 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Jon_R
    POPLA appeal rejected! What can I do next?
    • #1
    • 13th Feb 18, 2:24 PM
    POPLA appeal rejected! What can I do next? 13th Feb 18 at 2:24 PM
    Hi All

    Just after a bit of advice which I really should have done at the very beginning of my POPLA appeal, but here I am.

    Back in Nov'17 I was issued with a parking ticket by MET who are operating at McDonald's car park in Southall. Wording is as below:
    "At 10:11 on 16 November 2017 at (393) McDonald's Southall, London, UB1 1NN the vehicle with registration number XXXXXX was observed parked in an apparent breach of the terms and conditions that are displayed on signs in prominent places around the parking area and that those motorists entering the site agree to be bound by. As result, this parking charge notice, which is now immediately payable, had been issued, The reason for issuing the charge notice is: Not in restaurant (ctv)"

    First mistake was here when I appealed to MET as I admitted I was the driver but believing I had a strong case as I had been in the restaurant and provided evidence in form of a receipt clearly date and timed stamped.

    MET responded 04 Dec:
    "Thank you for your correspondence...in regards to Parking Charge XXXXX.
    Having carefully considered your correspondence we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons.
    The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the car park is for the use of customers while they are on the premises only" Your vehicle was observed parked in the car park when the driver was recorded as leaving the premises, therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it."

    I then went straight on to appeal to POPLA who eventually rejected it (response below), however I state in my appeal letter (which according to everyone was not attached to the POPLA website) yet I claim it was. Annoyingly the website is absolute rubbish in this regard as you have no way of knowing what was attached at the time, and no way of checking once your appeal has been made.

    "Decision
    Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    Alexandra Wilcock

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The vehicle’s driver did not remain on site whilst the vehicle remained on the premises.


    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority. He says that the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He says the signage within the car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all the parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. He states that the signage does not make it clear that motorists must remain within the premises. The appellant advised that the operator fails to indicate the commercial intent of the cameras on site. He states that there is no driver liability. The appellant says that the parking charge is terminology. The appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of the refusal letter, a sign on site, a copy of a McDonalds receipt. Furthermore, the operator has provided POPLA with images of his parking charge, and CCTV images.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state “This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes. By parking in this car park you are entering into a contractual agreement and agree to comply with the Terms and Conditions of Use. You also accept liability to pay a Parking Charge of £100 if you fail to comply with them”. The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant not remaining on site whilst his vehicle remained on the premises. The operator has provided POPLA with time and date stamped screenshots, taken from CCTV images, The evidence provided shows that the appellant entered the site and parked near signage. Furthermore, I can see that the appellant left the premises, and later returned for his vehicle. The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority. He says that the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice makes reference to grace periods. The BPA Code of Practice states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to this, the operator has provided a witness statement which confirms that the operator had the appropriate to issue PCN’s, on the site in question. Furthermore, I am satisfied that all the requirements in Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice have been covered by the operator. He says the signage within the car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all the parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. He states that the signage does not make it clear that motorists must remain within the premises. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. After reviewing the signage I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. This states “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Furthermore, as previously stated the signage on site, and provided by the appellant in his evidence, clearly states “This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only”. This illustrates that the site is for McDonald’s customers whom remain on site with their vehicles. The appellant advised that the operator fails to indicate the commercial intent of the cameras on site. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the images of the signage provided by both parties that it states “Patrols and/or automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras monitor vehicle activity in this private car park. Photographic and video evidence may be taken and surveys may be carried out. Please note that you may receive a parking charge notice for contravening any terms and conditions of use, which will require the payment of a parking charge”. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “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”. He states that there is no driver liability. I note the appellant’s comments however, the liability for any PCN issued lies with the driver of the vehicle on the date of the parking event. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 sets out the requirements that must be met in order for a parking operator to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, where the driver cannot be identified. In this case, the driver has been identified, as he named himself as the driver in his appeal to the operator, therefore the operator is not seeking to rely on PoFA to transfer liability. As such, PoFA does not apply in this case, and there is no requirement for the PCN to comply with the acts requirements. The appellant says that the parking charge is terminology. I note the appellant’s comments, and can see that he also refers to a PDF however, no PDF attachment has been attached. In this instance, this grounds for appeal does not make any sense, and has no bearing on my decision. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that patrons must not leave their vehicle on site, and leave the premises. As the appellant kept his vehicle on site and left the premises, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly."


    So to be clear I was the driver, entered the car park and parked, briefly skimmed the signs after I had parked, noting the sign said McDonald's customers only, 90mins free parking. Completely missing the small print that stated whilst on premises only. Went in got my coffee then left the site, returning within 90mins. My mistake, 100% missed this on the signage, so yes I agree with them.

    However my dispute with them is over the wording used in the original PCN for not in restaurant (ctv), which then seems to be completely overlooked by both MET and my POPLA appeal. Which all of a sudden switches from not in restaurant (ctv) to leaving the premises. Additionally the evidence (cctv stills) submitted by MET are of my outside the front of the restaurant (still on the premises), and then later walking across the car park to my car (still on the premises). At no point has evidence actually been provided of myself leaving the boundary of the restaurant/car park that is part of MET's evidence pack. I also requested that MET provide an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner and any 'site agreement'. All that was provided was a highly redacted contract and a redacted covering letter from McDonald's with permission to operate at a list of sites. On the final comments section once all evidence has been submitted I asked POPLA to review on these grounds that the evidence provided had been redacted, which seems to have been ignored as well.

    Where do people think I stand on this front given I guess the next move will be debt collector threats and then maybe small claims court? I absolutely refuse to pay these robbing £$%Xs unless people believe in all honesty I should.
    Last edited by Jon_R; 13-02-2018 at 2:54 PM.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Feb 18, 2:30 PM
    • 5,617 Posts
    • 4,293 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 13th Feb 18, 2:30 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Feb 18, 2:30 PM
    Where do people think I stand on this front given I guess the next move will be debt collector threats and then maybe small claims court? I absolutely refuse to pay these robbing £$%Xs unless people believe in all honesty I should.
    Originally posted by Jon_R
    Yes, you seem to have a good idea on what follows.

    Not much more to add other than ignore debt collector's letters and post again on this thread when you receive either a letter of claim or official court papers.

    If you do post again, then please make you post much more readable than that wall of text above, otherwise you may find assistance hard to come by.

    Help others to help you.
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Feb 18, 3:54 PM
    • 8,110 Posts
    • 7,387 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 13th Feb 18, 3:54 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Feb 18, 3:54 PM
    This is a scam, see what the Hof C think about it

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    It is most unlikely that they would win at court, leaving site is not a big deal, and they have to prove that they did everything possible to mitigate their losses, very difficult for them, iand few cases brought for this have succeeded.

    Complain to your MP, this particular scam is mentioned in the video.
    Last edited by The Deep; 13-02-2018 at 4:03 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 13th Feb 18, 4:00 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,278 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #4
    • 13th Feb 18, 4:00 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Feb 18, 4:00 PM
    and you worry about MET http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_Parking_Services.html
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Feb 18, 4:41 PM
    • 53,902 Posts
    • 67,587 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 13th Feb 18, 4:41 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Feb 18, 4:41 PM
    Exactly, no need to worry about MET, look at their court stats, LOL!

    Ignoring debt collector letters is amusing, I've done it myself before POPLA existed, as have many others.

    Nothing happens except daft begging letters; keep everything for 6 years and tell them if you move house, just in case (to avoid a secret 'credit clamping' CCJ at an old address) but you are lucky it's only MET.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Jon_R
    • By Jon_R 13th Feb 18, 7:37 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Jon_R
    • #6
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:37 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:37 PM
    Thanks all. I will put them straight in the recycling bin.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Feb 18, 7:51 PM
    • 5,617 Posts
    • 4,293 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:51 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Feb 18, 7:51 PM
    Thanks all. I will put them straight in the recycling bin.
    Originally posted by Jon_R
    You might consider keeping them.

    Could be useful in a harassment case, for example - your choice though.

    C-M did say:
    keep everything for 6 years...
    Last edited by KeithP; 13-02-2018 at 8:05 PM.
    .
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

3,994Posts Today

9,836Users online

Martin's Twitter