MET Parking at McDonalds

Big_Ells

Sooo, MetParking replied to the appeal with a 70 page document, stating court cases, law e.t.c. is there anything else I should do or just wait and see?

They quote ParkingEye v Beavis a lot

Big_Ells

Couple of extracts about Beavis:

'As explained in great detail by: HHJ Moloney in the County Court Case, ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley (2014); and as held in the subsequent Court of Appeal ruling by Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Patten and Sir Timothy Lloyd in ParkingEye and Barry Beavis (2015), the charge would be enforceable and need not represent an exact pre-estimate of loss if there are commercial justifications for this charge and the value of the charge is neither unconscionable or extravagant. Without rehearsing the Court of Appeal’s judgement in full it is worth noting that the Court considered that the provisions of Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 reflect Parliament’s consideration that charges of this kind “should be recoverable provided that they had been brought clearly to the attention of the motorist at the time he made use of the car park”'

'The reduction in charges offered for early payment reflect the reduction in collection costs and are required to be offered under the terms of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. In addition as previously stated, Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Patten and Sir Timothy Lloyd in ParkingEye and Barry Beavis (2015) held in the Court of Appeal that charges of this nature need not be an exact pre-estimate of loss if there are commercial justifications for this charge and the value of the charge is neither unconscionable or extravagant. The commercial justifications for the charge are to: enable MET to perform its contractual duties; ensure provision can be made for motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client’s premises. This information is made clear on the signs and does not affect the validity of the charge.'

Should I just reply now with:

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

Then add more later?

prosnap

This could be the sign of a massive medical breakthrough.

It looks like MET Parking may be growing a backbone.

Big_Ells

Today is the last day of the 28 days to respond, should I just respond about Beavis or is there somthing I should add?

Umkomaas

Is today your POPLA deadline?

Big_Ells

Is it 28 days from my first response from POPLA?

Umkomaas

I'm a bit confused here. Have you already submitted your POPLA appeal?

Big_Ells

My appeal deadline was the beginning of the month, but once a POPLA appeal is open you have 28 days, that would make today the final day.

Yea I have submitted my POPLA appeal and Met have responded quoting Beavis.

I need to reply tonight if I want to add anything

The_Deep

I very much doubt that Met pay the landowner £1,000 a week to farm the car park, so their claim to commercial justification looks very thin.

I think that, if it got to court they would have extreme difficulty if they quoted Beavis, especially if local LA fines were lower.

Big_Ells

Any suggestions on how I should reply?
Thanks