Southall Mcdaonds MET PCN

yaz2010

Hi Guys,

I have just received a NTK from MET for parking at Southall McDonalds.
Code: 08 Driver not on premises at the time of Survey.
I had got a windscreen PCN on 20th June and today received the NTK.
I have replied using their online service and appealed as per the NEWBIES Thread and used the template.

I have lost the receipt but got a bank statement to indicate my purchase.

Anyone else recently got a PCN from MET Mcdonalds?

Should I send the appeal via post as well ?

After submitting my online appeal, I have got the below response on the screen.

Informal Challenge Form
Thank you for your correspondence, your reference number is: xxxxxxxxx
Please keep this for your records, you will receive a response to your correspondence by post or email, within 10 working days.

Just a bit tense as the amount has now increased from £50 to £100.

Thank you.

Dee140157

If you have had a response you don't need to send by post

However if you look at the successful complaints thread linked to in Crabman's sticky (under Newbie one), you will see lots of examples of successful McDonalds complaints that lead to the PCN getting cancelled by them.

Read a couple and then sure in the in knowledge despite any denial by a manager, go in and complain loudly in front of a lot of people with bank statement in hand, demanding a cancellation.

This is scam being used by MET a lot. I think Parking Prankster has even blogged on it.

Also I would complain to the BPA &. DVLA as this is an extra abuse by this company of getting details from the DVLA.

POFA 12 gives then the right to get your details if they are are certain of the parking event. This is a scam pure and simple.

Where were you when they called out your registration in the restaurant? And all the others who are there too. I bet no one heard them come in and loudly tick off all the cars in the car park!

Complain and complain and complain.

Oh and MET will be easy to beat at POPLA. So you won't be paying a bean. In fact I would demand a courtesy meal (if you can really eat the muck they serve there) out of the manager for this unwarranted harassment.

Guys_Dad

Ticketing from MET outside McDonald's is actually the Good Lord giving you advice about where to eat healthily!

Heed our Newbies thread and also the warning from up high!

The_Deep

You are not alone, it seems that you cannot sit down for a meal there nowadays without some goon coming in and balling out car registration numbers.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5014672=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5012887=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5004398=

fisherjim

So in this picture there are fifteen cars and they are saying some complete buffoon comes in and reads out all the reg numbers at some point, and if you don't jump up to the role call, or was sitting on the toilet (if you can squeeze into it) you get a ticket.
What a load of baloney, their sign says McDonald's customer park, 90 minutes maximum stay, it doesn't say you will be hit by some mythical scam they have dreamed up.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.512495,-0.384487,3a,19.3y,94.74h,82.3t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syvszqtGqpdRcl9_DrSSEig!2e0!6m1!1e1

yaz2010

Hi Members,

I applied to MET and have received the rejection from them today with the POPLA code.

Here is the draft I have prepared to submit to POPLA.

Could you please check and let me know if this is ok?

Thank you.

POPLA appeal re MET Parking ticket MP……..

Alleged infringement

I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice number MP…………..

I have researched the matter, taken advice and would like to point out the following points as my appeal against said charge:

A) Genuine pre-estimate of loss
Punitive charges and unfair terms
C) No contractual authority to levy charges
D) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage
E) No clear map of the site boundary - no contract with driver formed

A) Genuine pre-estimate of loss
The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

There was no parking charge levied. On the date of the claimed loss it was not at full capacity. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can MET Parking lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance. In this case, MET Parking has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. Again, it is the Appellant's position that MET Parking has suffered no loss for the duration that the car was parked.

In addition, the sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whatever the alleged breach of contract may be. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £50 on days 1 to 14, then £100 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by the Respondent.

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.


Punitive charges and unfair terms

The charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."

Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

I believe that the presented charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

C) No contractual authority to levy charges

MET Parking do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, MET Parking have not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question, I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract.

I would request that POPLA please check whether MET Parking has provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice

D) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage

Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance to the shop.

I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land, in terms of wording, position and clarity, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])

E) No clear map of the site boundary - no contract with driver formed
It seems that MET are alleging the driver went off-site but have supplied no evidence of this, nor explained what constitutes 'off-site' and what their 'site survey' involved. And it has not been established whether they checked if, perhaps, a passenger was on site all along, and how this observation was made, by whom and how it was recorded as evidence. I put MET to strict proof of this 'site survey' and photographic evidence of neither a driver nor passenger of this car being on site; such evidence to include photographs of the contravention and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left. If no such sign nor evidence exists then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of evidence I deny that there was any contravention. I say there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in 'exchange' for going off site; there was no consideration, offer nor acceptance and no site boundary defined.


Just a refresher: I was give a windscreen PCN on 20th June with code 08: Customer not on site while a survey was conducted.

hoohoo

If you did not leave the site then also add this.

Also complain to McDonalds head office. MET were hauled in to McDonalds UK head office as a result of the Mail articles, so will welcome any evidence of this scam.

Dee140157

Have a look at the successful complaints thread linked to by Crabman in his sticky. If I remember rightly there are lots of successful McDonald complainers. Go to manager and demand he cancel it as a genuine customer.

yaz2010

I have spoken to the manager and he says they no longer have the right to cancel PCN's and gave me the MET appeal form.

I have submitted an appeal at POPLA.

I feel it is a scam as on my next 2 visits to get this PCN cancelled I noticed the MET attendant sitting in Mcdonalds in a corner and getting a free meal.

Umkomaas

Onwards and upwards, sort them out at POPLA.

Dee140157

As Guy's Dad says, maybe this is a message from up high about the healthiness of the Golden Arches. To have a little devil sat there in the "restaurant" ( I use that term loosely) must surely be a reminder of the damage being done to your body...