MET parking PCN POPLA stage

cola109

Hello,

I have read the newbies thread and didn't find advice on what to do if the driver has basically admitted liability.

Long story short:
My dad parked in McDonalds, had a meal overstayed the 90 minutes by 10 minutes and received a PCN in the post. He was shocked and immediately responded to them explaining why he overstayed (he used 1st person)
Of course they rejected his appeal and sent a POPLA code and he now has just over 20 days to appeal to POPLA.

Any advice on how to proceed given that he spoke in first person in his appeal letter. We are in process of writing to McDonalds to cancel the charge, as it wasn't a local one to him.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Guys_Dad

Time to dust this off again


You are making the newbies' common mistake which is "I done wrong, guv, so they are right to charge me. How can I defend that??".

Our point is " regardless of the facts, PPCs are penalising motorists to a ludicrous extent to which they are not entitled and we concentrate on helping people based on that point"

Suppose you had been caught doing 35 mph in a 30 mph limit. You get to the Magistrates court and they say "Guilty. Lock him up for 2 years".

You would get a brief to appeal the sentence, not the verdict.

So that's the case here. You are appealing the "sentence" of £100 that does not fit the "crime",

So, you major on the "No genuine pre-estimate of loss" point.

Also, suppose the PPC didn't have the right to charge you 1p as they didn't have a valid contract with the landowner? So you demand that they produce the contract in question that actually specifies that they are allowed to charge you.

Going back to the "crime" of speeding. Suppose that there were no 30mph signs up and it wasn't obvious that you were in built up area. Would that be fair? So you challenge the signage of the park in question. Obviously the signage was inadequate or you would have seen it.

Basically, that's it in a nutshell.

Now forget the facts and use one of the template appeals based around 4 points, including GPEOL, in the NEWBIES sticky at the top of the forum.

cola109

So my dad can still appeal as RK even though he basically admitted he was the driver to the PCN?

prosnap

I managed to beat Met/McDonalds at POPLA.


It's not exactly difficult .... They did not even bother to offer POPLA any evidence. This seems to now be normal for them.


Use the appeal and cost them money.


Just make sure your appeal includes GPEOL.

cola109

Thank you all for your help.

Could someone please confirm if he is able to appeal as RK even though his initial letter was written in first person and basically implying he was the driver

da_rule

As long as he is the registered keeper then it cannot hurt.

prosnap

In my case it would not have mattered who was driving .... They had no case!


Give me a shout if you want to look at my POPLA appeal.

cola109

Yes thank you, that would be great.

cola109

This is a template POPLA appeal letter i found on here, please let me know if this is ok to send

POPLA Code:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: MET Parking Services Limited
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

On xx of xxx 2014 I was sent an invoice from MET Parking Services Limited, as keeper of the above vehicle requiring payment of a charge of £100 for an alleged parking contravention.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
3) No authority to levy charges
4) Lack of contract
5) Cameras


1) This charge is not a contractually agreed sum. It is a disguised breach and is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
MET Parking Services Limited has not made clear the basis of their charge. Having visited the site, it appears they may be claiming the charge is a contractually agreed sum, which I dispute. In my original appeal to MET Parking Services Limited I requested that they cancel the charge as there was no clarification of the basis of the charge. However in their rejection letter, MET Parking Services Limited failed to address this point and failed to provide the information or VAT invoice. Nor have they provided a calculation to show this is a genuine pre estimate of loss if alleging breach of contract.

a) If this charge was a contractually agreed fee, the sign would have been worded to offer various durations of parking at various costs. In addition, a payment mechanism would have been provided on-site and a VAT invoice supplied. This is not the case here.

This is a free (for 90 minutes) car park and there is no mechanism to pay for additional parking. The signage indicates that parking for over 90 minutes attracts a £100 charge and as no limits are specified, this could equally apply for an additional 10 minutes, 10 weeks or indeed 10 years!

This ‘don’t do this or else’ approach shows the charges are actually failing to comply, which equals a deterrent for breach. In addition no VAT invoice has been provided and I have no evidence that this business operation on this car park has been registered for business rates.

Despite what the sign attempts to say, it is not an offer to park for a fee and it is clear that the true and predominant purpose of the alleged 'parking operation,' at McDonalds in Alperton, is to deter breach and in the absence of evidence that this charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss, it is an unrecoverable penalty.

In a recent ruling at Luton Crown Court 2014 (Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty) the judge ruled that sum quoted on the sign was not a genuine offer to park at that price, but its main purpose was to deter. It was, therefore, a penalty dressed up as a contractual term, and not recoverable.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79, there is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach”.

It would normally be for the owner to claim for loss which is nothing as there are no fees for using this car park and there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged). It is unfair to attempt to make a party pay excessively for an event that would normally be 'breach of contract'.

I require MET Parking Services Limited to provide a VAT invoice, details of the daily rates of parking and proof that this chargeable regime at this location is registered for business rates.

b) If the sum is sought as damages for breach of contract then under established contract law, it must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss arising from the breach.

The car park is free and there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged). I submit that on a free car park there can be no loss arising from any alleged overstay.

The demand for £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, the BPA Code of Practice states:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.
The appellant requires MET Parking Services Limited to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications, that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

My case is the same.



2) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to MET Parking Services Limited, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be MET Parking Services Limited or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3) No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer, on the landowner’s behalf, and enforce for breach of contract. The operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner or a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. The appellant believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles MET Parking Services Limited to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices. The appellant puts the operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and demands that the operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the operator.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4) No contract
There was no contract between the driver and MET Parking Services Limited. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract, such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms, were not satisfied. However, even if there was a contract, which is denied, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5) Cameras
MET Parking Services Limited is obliged to make sure their equipment is in working order and complies with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21. The appellant required them to present evidence on whether the cameras were checked and maintained recently in relation to the date of the alleged incident, to ensure the accuracy of any MET Parking Services Limited images. They have failed to do so, although this is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) is also compliant with legal and BPA requirements and demand that they demonstrate adherence.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours faithfully,


RK

cola109

I have also got a template (again which I found on here - so thank you) for a letter to McDonalds. Please could you read and let me know if both (above included) are suitable to be sent. Thanks in advance.

OFFICIAL COMPLAINT ABOUT MET PARKING SERVICES LIMITED, AS AGENTS FOR MC DONALDS - ALPERTON
I am forced to make an official complaint to you because the actions of your agent, MET Parking Services Limited, are upsetting, intimidatory and will drive away genuine McDonalds customers in the long run. I have received a letter purporting to mimic a 'parking ticket' from MET, and yet I knew nothing about any issues at the time when I was at McDonalds.

I came to McDonalds, ordered food and had my order messed up, which caused further delays. After which I decided to relax for a while as I was exhausted from a long journey on the motorway. The car park was pretty much empty so I really didn't cause any losses to you nor MET.

After which I was sent a fake parking ticket by your agents for apparently 'overstaying,' by what seems to be 10 minutes. I am now expected to have to explain my actions to a third party private company who I had no dealings with, no contract with, and who are demanding a lot of money from me - in my book that is totally unacceptable.

We are very upset and increasingly angry about this entire episode. After a long drive to London, to then relax and have breakfast at McDonalds has now left a nasty taste in the mouth. My family is horrified that McDonalds can allow such a notorious firm to harass customers on your behalf. Because MET sent their letter out unexpectedly after the event, I do not have a receipt because not only did I pay by cash, McDonalds don’t usually give receipts in my past experiences. I wasn’t aware of any 90 minute time limit or indeed any possibility of getting a 'parking ticket' - until as the registered keeper of the car, I was suddenly sent a demand by your agents. Had I known this, I would have thought twice about my decision to eat at McDonalds.

I have researched the matter and intend to escalate my challenge against MET Parking Services Limited to the independent stage (Parking on Private Land Appeals). However, I am giving McDonalds the chance to quash the fake PCN once and for all because I feel you need to know that you and your agents are alienating genuine customers due to MET's zero-tolerance policy. As MET Parking Services are your agents, you are fully responsible and liable for the actions of your agents, and I will be holding McDonalds liable for any costs associated in cancelling the unlawful penalty.

Well before renewing your contracts with MET Parking Services Limited when the time comes, might I just suggest you take time to read and digest the implications to other Retailers, Supermarkets & customers, and the picture painted of MET Parking Services Limited's aggressive business practices.

Nevertheless, what MET Parking Services Limited may well have to say on the matter, no doubt involving spin about their firm 'being members of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme' (in reality, merely trade body 'club membership' which enables them to buy registered keeper data and certainly does not 'regulate' their industry) I would also respectfully suggest that McDonalds should research the company you are associating with. In truth, MET Parking Services Limited has a terrible online reputation and are now suing customers over minor 'infringements' without referral to their clients, like yourselves, who may still naively believe that their agenda is 'parking management'.

It seems that so many clients, blinded by the idea of 'parking management for free' have fallen for the spiel of a dominant company whose agenda is profit alone. It is not 'parking management' to have ANPR cameras on site and yet no management of spaces, no attendants and no checks made of disabled bays, for example. It's pure profiteering by your agent, routinely 'farming' car parks with no consideration for individual customer needs and circumstances.

My view is that apparently free ANPR-led enforcement of parking spaces by a notorious and litigious third party firm, using remote cameras at the entrance and exit, is completely incompatible with the customer service ethic of McDonalds.

I would welcome your own view on this harassment and hope you see fit to ensure that MET cancel the 'ticket' immediately. My research about this matter has revealed that you have cancelled some of these tickets for genuine customers in the past, which has helped to restore my faith a little, albeit tempered with frustration that McDonalds are allowing such an aggressive agent to have free reign, to intimidate customers for their own profit, at your (and your customers') own expense.

Yours faithfully,


RK

ColliesCarer

Re: The POPLA appeal draft

Was the appeal template you found actually written for MET or was it initially a different parking company?

The reason I ask is that I am of the understanding MET don't do contractual charges but breach of contract ones.

What does it say on the PCN received? e.g Does it say things like "breached the terms and conditions"
Do you have photos of the signs on the site or know exactly what wording was used? The wording on the signs are what they are relying on in terms of what type of contract they are alleging your father entered into.

Don't rush it as this is not a one size fits all part of the process - it's important your appeal is based on what is actually being claimed by your particular parking company at that specific location.