MET Parking appeal rejection, doesn't quite fit the POPLA template

supertwisted

Good day to you all,

I fell victim to the MET/McDonalds PCN in Sep.

I followed the Newbie guide and filed my initial appeal with MET using the templates in the guide. I now have their rejection letter and POPLA code, so have dutifilly set about adapting the POPLA template to me needs, however a couple of points stand out...

"[FONT=&quot]1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]MET Parking Services state in their letter of rejection that the parking charge represents a claim for liquidated damages."

and
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"3. Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’..."
[/FONT]
The rejection letter I have from MET doesn't mention a claim for liquidated damages, and they identify themselves as the creditor as below:

"MET Parking Services LTD are the creditor and engaged by McDonalds to enforce adherence to the terms and conditions of use. As such we have authority to issue Parking Charge Notices for contractual breach and under the law of agency the contract you have entered into is with ourselves. The charge was issued for a breach of contract and the sum that is payable in the event of breach of the terms and conditions of use of the carking contract are clearly identified at the site."

Any help on how to amend my argument to fit their rebuttal would be gratefully received.

Thanks
[/FONT]

Half_way

"[FONT=&quot]1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]MET Parking Services state in their letter of rejection that the parking charge represents a claim for liquidated damages."

[FONT=&quot]standard reply, did they say what these liquidated dam[FONT=&quot]ages were / are?
[FONT=&quot] ite not been unknown for PPCs to have the [FONT=&quot]idea[/FONT] that charging for staff tea bags is somehow liquid[FONT=&quot]ated [FONT=&quot]damages[/FONT].
[FONT=&quot] Also is[FONT=&quot] it possible to re-visit the mc donalds in question? they should be able to cancel the charge as long as you are firm and polite[FONT=&quot].
[FONT=&quot] You [FONT=&quot]should[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]also[/FONT] have a POPLA code from the rejection [FONT=&quot]letter[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot] put that [FONT=&quot]code into the parking cowboys checker here http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/ and see how long you have left to submit a challenge/appeal to POPLA
[FONT=&quot] do not let the popla [FONT=&quot]time out[FONT=&quot], going to the landowner/car park owner ( or the mc donalds) should be [FONT=&quot]done in parra[FONT=&quot]lel.
[FONT=&quot] if you want to you cou[FONT=&quot]ld /should inform the mc doanlds that you hold them jointly liable for the actions of their agents [FONT=&quot]and if they dont cancel the ticket then [FONT=&quot]should you [FONT=&quot]submit a successful appeal to POPLA you will hold t[FONT=&quot]hat MC [FONT=&quot]D[/FONT]onalds liable for any costs that you run up[FONT=&quot] as a result of their agents actions[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Coupon-mad

The fact they say they are the creditor in a rejection letter does NOT put right the omissions in the NTK! You shouldn't need to change much at all in the MET POPLA example. Certainly the charge is not a GPEOL, that's pretty obvious!!

If they said the driver left the site don't forget to add a point that there is no evidence that any contravention occurred and you put MET to strict proof that all the occupants of the car left the site, and that the boundary of 'the site' was clearly communicated by way of a map on signage. Add that MET are known to pretend they did a 'site survey' which seems to constitute poking their head inside the McDonalds to look for people (or just saying they did). As such, this is not proof of people leaving the site as the driver DID use the restaurant but also used the toilet and so MET cannot show evidence that the driver wasn't in the McDonalds.

Even attach this link from the Parking Prankster's Blog, to show how you know about the way they operate:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/met-parking-operate-customer-not-here.html

No reason why not to show that link, it's info in the public domain which supports your argument.

The_Deep

Liquidated damages are those sums which the PPC thinks are due to them for the losses which they alleged you caused them by contravening the T&C of the contract which they allege you entered into with them.

It is a standard term and, in order that they can prove those losses, they have to account for them. For example failing to buy a ticket causes them loss, overstaying in a free car park where there is no opportunity to buy extra time does not.

As half way says, they would have to have provided those tea bags whether you left the site or not, the cost therefore does not flow from you leaving the site.

It is a con from start to finish, which many people fall for, but you can learn how to turn the tables on them. You will appeal that these damages as a penalty, not a genuine pre-estimate of their losses.

Hot_Bring

As we seem to have a moron stopping proper threads being displayed ..... bounce.

supertwisted

Thanks for the replies, sorry I've been slow to respond - I've started a new job recently and life has been pretty hectic!


It seems I didn't explain myself too well in my original post:
In METs rejection letter, they specifically DO NOT state they are claiming for liquidated damages.


Instead they only say:
"The charge notice was issued for breach of contract and the sum that is payable in the event of breach of the terms and conditions of use of the parking contract are clearly identified on site."


So does the standard "..liquidated damages..." line in the POPLA template still apply?

Coupon-mad

Yes - it's the same as 'the sum that is payable in the event of breach'. You are overthinking this a bit but do show us your draft if you want reassurance before submitting it to POPLA.