MET Parking at McDonalds

Big_Ells

Hi there. I have read the newbie sticky but want to clarify.

One of our fleet cars has been 'done' for parking in a McDonalds for too long by MET, although they were in the McDonalds they didn't keep any receipts. We lease the cars from Toyota so they have passed on our company details to MET.

MET do not have the direct drivers info just our business information.

Am I correct that I should just write to them and tell them I have passed this onto the driver and it is down to them to sort it and any further letters will be taken as harassment and shredded? Whilst not putting any names just a squiggle and Company Director.

The McDonalds in question is a fair distance from our company so no chance of me visiting to complain, would cost more than £50 in fuel.

Thanks

Redx

no, because you have not named the driver, so as keeper you are held liable under POFA 2012 (in england and wales)

its either appeal as keeper , or name the driver, the driver then gets an NTK in their own name and both you and toyota are not deemed liable under POFA 2012

so saying its with the driver with no drivers details does not help you at all, sorry

Big_Ells

Perfect, thanks.
I will reply as in the newbie section.

nigelbb

Redx wrote: »

no, because you have not named the driver, so as keeper you are held liable under POFA 2012 (in england and wales)

its either appeal as keeper , or name the driver, the driver then gets an NTK in their own name and both you and toyota are not deemed liable under POFA 2012

so saying its with the driver with no drivers details does not help you at all, sorry

This is actually more complicated than that. Toyota Leasing is presumably the Registered Keeper but your company is not the keeper (unless possibly it's a pool car). The keeper is whoever has day to day control over the car. You don't know who the driver was just who the keeper is. You should pass on the details of whoever the keeper is making it clear that they are the keeper & that you are not naming the driver.

As the Notice To Keeper must be delivered to the Keeper within 14 days of the parking 'crime' if the keeper is to be responsible for any unpaid parking charge I am pretty sure that the PPC will be out of time for keeper liability. They are probably already out of time. What was the date of the parking 'crime' & what is the date on the Notice To Keeper that you have from MET?

Big_Ells

The date of the offence was the 06/05 and the date on the letter to us is the 24/05

We have 3 cars from Toyota, all are pool cars.

I would be dealing with this on behalf on my employee so have no intention of given them his details to deal with.

nigelbb

Big_Ells wrote: »

The date of the offence was the 06/05 and the date on the letter to us is the 24/05

We have 3 cars from Toyota, all are pool cars.

I would be dealing with this on behalf on my employee so have no intention of given them his details to deal with.

Is the letter an NTK from MET or a letter from Toyota stating they have passed on your details to MET?

Big_Ells

Its a NTK from MET, Toyota obviously gave them our details

nigelbb

MET have not delivered the NTK in time to hold the keeper liable for any unpaid parking charges. It's tough !!!!!! for MET that POFA 2012 is so badly drawn that there is no allowance for this situation. Go ahead & appeal then if/when they refuse it then you will have a guaranteed win at POPLA.

Big_Ells

So should I just use the standard letter in the sticky?

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

MET have not delivered the NTK in time to hold the keeper liable for any unpaid parking charges. It's tough !!!!!! for MET that POFA 2012 is so badly drawn that there is no allowance for this situation. Go ahead & appeal then if/when they refuse it then you will have a guaranteed win at POPLA.

Can you explain this point? I believe you may be wrong, unless the letter received is a Notice to Keeper. It should be a Notice to Hirer. Will OP please confirm the wording.

If they wrote to the RK in time (Toyota) and they replied within the timeframe in POFA, they are treating the OP as the hirer and that comes under a separate timescale that is "ground zero" from the time that the PPC is made aware of who the hirer is.

Section/Paragraph 14 is quite clear about this.

The distinction between NTK and notice to hirer, which is what the OP should have received, is laid out in paragraph 14.

However, do check that all of the information specified in that para has been included in the Notice to Hirer.

Big_Ells

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Can you explain this point? I believe you may be wrong, unless the letter received is a Notice to Keeper. It should be a Notice to Hirer. Will OP please confirm the wording.

If they wrote to the RK in time (Toyota) and they replied within the timeframe in POFA, they are treating the OP as the hirer and that comes under a separate timescale that is "ground zero" from the time that the PPC is made aware of who the hirer is.

Section/Paragraph 14 is quite clear about this.

The distinction between NTK and notice to hirer, which is what the OP should have received, is laid out in paragraph 14.

However, do check that all of the information specified in that para has been included in the Notice to Hirer.

The PCN states:

'A parking charge notice was issued to the registered keeper of the above vehicle who has provided us with your name and address and advised us that you were the hirer of the vehicle on the 06/05/2015'