MET parking ticket McDonalds

beamerguy

A very odd story, wonder how McD's HO would account for this when you consider that MET Parking offer a self ticketing service meaning it could easily be McD's staff on a little earner

http://www.metparking.com/our_services/parking_enforcement/self_ticketing.html

Whilst McD will deny this, the last thing they want is customers being penalised by a scam

stillmans39

Herzlos wrote: »

I mean, do you think Mcdonalds would allow some muppet to come in and do a roll call for cars in the car park several times a day?

I'm afraid they do - I've seen it happen. Not saying it's legally sound, but this is the racket they operate.

Umkomaas

stillmans39 wrote: »

I'm afraid they do - I've seen it happen. Not saying it's legally sound, but this is the racket they operate.

And you still got caught? :eek:

Never give a scammer a chance to scam.

Ralph-y

As above .....

what happens if you are

in the toilet ?

have your headphones on ?

a little deaf?

Ralph:cool:

stillmans39

Here is my draft which I'll send towards the end of the time period. I'd be grateful for your comments/suggestions etc - thanks

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am appealing the Parking Charge on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability.
As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule stipulates that the creditor must give "a notice to driver ... followed by a notice to keeper". Paragraph 9 of the Schedule goes on to state that the notice to keeper must be given within a "period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given". No notice to keeper has been received and the period of time stated above has now elapsed. Therefore MET Parking Services have not complied with the Act.

2. The rejection letter from MET Parking Services following the initial appeal states that: "the terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at this site including that there is a 90 minute maximum stay for the use of McDonald's customers only" As the driver was in the car park for less that 90 minutes and was a customer, there are no grounds at all for the issuing of this parking charge notice.

3. The rejection letter also states that "a site survey was conducted whilst your vehicle was on the premises ...We note you state that the driver was a paying customer, however, the manager of the restaurant signed the survey to confirm that there was no one present to take accountability for your vehicle and to authorise the issuing of this charge"
There is insufficient evidence that the driver was not on the premises. MET Parking Services need to show clear proof of the efficacy of the site survey - that they checked all parts of the premises (including the toilets) and surveyed every customer in the restaurant.

4. The signage is deliberately misleading. It states that the car park is "for the use of McDonalds customers whilst on the premises only" This implies that the car park is to be used by those patronising the restaurant, not those who are shopping or using the services of other businesses nearby. However there are always times when customers may need to leave the premises - e.g. to withdraw money from a cash point, to take an urgent phone call, to attend to a car alarm etc. If customers are specifically forbidden to leave the premises for any reason, even when they have purchased food from the restaurant, this needs to be made clear on the signs. One would expect the signs to say something like 'users of this car park must not leave the premises under any circumstances'. It is also unclear what constitutes the premises - the restaurant only or the restaurant and the car park. If it is only the restaurant, then drivers would be in breach of parking regulations when walking to or from their car to the restaurant. If it does also include the car park, as I assume it must, then did the parking attendant also survey every person in the car park, as well as inside the restaurant, and can MET Parking Services offer clear proof of this?

For the reasons stated above, I believe that the grounds for this Parking Charge Notice are completely insufficent and I would ask for the charge to be annulled.

Umkomaas

It's 99% certain that MET aren't going to cancel at the initial appeal stage, no matter what you put in the appeal. Parking penalties are their only form of income - why on earth would they uphold an appeal?

Some of the stuff you've put in the appeal is better kept up your sleeve, then served up cold at the POPLA stage.

Some of the rhetoric about customers leaving the premises for cash is largely playing into their hands - it's not likely to influence them, and will be of no benefit at POPLA. This needs to be won on legal grounds, not hypothesis.

Just use the blue text template in post #1 of the newbies sticky - unadulterated.

stillmans39

Umkomaas wrote: »

It's 99% certain that MET aren't going to cancel at the initial appeal stage, no matter what you put in the appeal. Parking penalties are their only form of income - why on earth would they uphold an appeal?

Some of the stuff you've put in the appeal is better kept up your sleeve, then served up cold at the POPLA stage.

this is a POPLA appeal. MET have already rejected my initial appeal.

Umkomaas

stillmans39 wrote: »

this is a POPLA appeal. MET have already rejected my initial appeal.

Sorry - skim read. But as it didn't (to me) look like a POPLA appeal, I assumed it was an initial one to the PPC!

You need more work on it - see post #3 of the newbies sticky where some recent POPLA appeals are linked. Use these as examples to be adapted, not as templates.

Your appeal draft seems to be missing Contract with the Landowner, No Proprietary Interest in the Land, a Beavis deconstruction to head off the PPC from simply putting 'it's Beavis, innit' and POPLA swallowing it and trotting out its Beavis template, with you losing.

You might get some of your own photos of the signage to include if they are helpful to your case, or to use in the event of the PPC using stock photos. Was it dark at the time of the 'infringement'? If so you need to take photos in darkness (no flash) to show how visible they were at the time (or otherwise).

HTH

jus71_2

Did you keep your receipt? I did exactly the same as you - got money first then made a purchase. When i got back to the car and saw the ticket, I went back in and got them to print my receipt off. My one was from UKPC and they cancelled the ticket when i appealed. Even though I left the premises briefly I was still a paying customer

What annoys me more, is that quite a few other cars had tickets on and i bet some paid up

stillmans39

Am I right in thinking though that if they don't send a Notice to Keeper within the time frame, my appeal must be upheld - since they have not followed the regulations set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012?

Thanks