MET parking ticket McDonalds

Coupon-mad

stillmans39 wrote: »

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

Yes if you did not ever say who was driving in the first appeal, as you have assured us you didn't. We've said this all along. That's why the keeper appeals to a windscreen PCN, to distract a PPC so they forget the NTK. It's a plan we've followed for over a year - and it often works.

But POPLA Assessors are worse than clueless at the moment - there appears to have been a catastrophic failure to train the new staff properly on Schedule 4 of the POFA. For this reason I suggest this appeal point is your #1 and that you quote the section of Schedule 4 shown here - and drum it into the appeal this is THE LAW and there is no other way for a keeper to be liable - to pre-empt a disatrous decision like this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70481748#Comment_70481748

Ralph-y

stillmans39 ....
you are now getting the best advice you will get .....

try paying for advice ....... if you wish ...

I will bet you a £ that it will not stand up to what you will get off CM

be brave ...

good luck

Ralph:cool:

stillmans39

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But POPLA Assessors are worse than clueless at the moment - there appears to have been a catastrophic failure to train the new staff properly on Schedule 4 of the POFA. For this reason I suggest this appeal point is your #1 and that you quote the section of Schedule 4 shown here - and drum it into the appeal this is THE LAW and there is no other way for a keeper to be liable - to pre-empt a disatrous decision like this one

Wow! That is a truly shocking decision. Will certainly follow your advice.

stillmans39

Ralph-y wrote: »

stillmans39 ....
you are now getting the best advice you will get .....

try paying for advice ....... if you wish ...

I will bet you a £ that it will not stand up to what you will get off CM

be brave ...

good luck

Ralph:cool:

I don't doubt that. Very grateful for all the help I've been given.

jus71_2

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you really think they happened to go in and harrass all of the Mcdonalds customers at the moment you happen to be out of the site? More likely is that someone watched you leave the site from behind a bush, ran across and stuck the ticket on, and never went in.

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? What happens to customers in the toilet, or that are on their way back to the car?

I doubt they could prove such roll call, so their claim is entirely fraudulent.

Complaint to Mcdonalds, the BPA and the DVLA.

When i complained to McDonalds i got a reply after 3 weeks

I can confirm this parking area is managed by an independent company who are responsible for monitoring the car park and taking details of registration numbers. The regulations and signs at the restaurant clearly state the policy and the relevant charges.

Suffice to say, if a customer contravenes the clearly displayed parking regulations, they will receive a ticket.


In my case the he did literally run out from behind a bush, stuck tickets on cars then left the car park, the driver in the car next to me couldn't believe it!

beamerguy

jus71 wrote: »

When i complained to McDonalds i got a reply after 3 weeks

I can confirm this parking area is managed by an independent company who are responsible for monitoring the car park and taking details of registration numbers. The regulations and signs at the restaurant clearly state the policy and the relevant charges.

Suffice to say, if a customer contravenes the clearly displayed parking regulations, they will receive a ticket.


In my case the he did literally run out from behind a bush, stuck tickets on cars then left the car park, the driver in the car next to me couldn't believe it!

In the words of Mcdonalds ... "suffice to say"

SUFFICE TO SAY, you will not be visiting McDonalds again.
Stupidity = loss of customers

My reason for not going to Mcdonalds is the recent media reports that their Mc muffin had mould all over the egg .... YUK

Half_way

Suffice to say that this company are agents of mcdonalds, and mcdonalds will be paying you for your wasted time.

stillmans39

Success!. I've received this email from POPLA:

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 3860846139.

MET Parking Services have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Here is the transcript of my appeal sent to POPLA:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am appealing Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXX, issued by Met Parking Services on 4th March 2016 on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability.
A Notice to Keeper has not been issued. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Paragraph 4 of The Act states that

(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met
The condition specified in paragraph 6 “is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.”
Paragraph 9 states this 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"

As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have not received a Notice to Keeper. As you can see, the law is unequivocal on this matter. A Notice to Keeper must be served where the driver has not been identified. Without this, the creditor does not have the right to recover the charge from the keeper of the vehicle. For this reason my appeal must be upheld.

2. The parking charge has been issued incorrectly and the reason for the charge is unclear. 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 than 90 minutes and was a customer, there are no grounds at all for the issuing of this parking charge notice.

The rejection letter 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.

3. The signage is deliberately misleading. The signs displayed around the car park clearly state that it is a customer car park and there is a maximum stay of 90 minutes. Only in the terms and conditions does it state that it is “for the use of McDonald’s 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 and should be included in the red ‘headline’ section of the signage. One would expect the signs to say something like 'users of this car park must not leave the premises'.

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?

I hope you will consider my points carefully. I would emphasise that point 1 is not a subjective argument but a bald statement of fact. A Notice to Keeper is required in this case by law and this has not been issued. I therefore see no way in which the charge issued by the PPO can be upheld.

Yours faithfully,


The only thing that I'm a little annoyed by is that on tracking my appeal on the POPLA website, it says MET are dropping the charge as a 'goodwill gesture'. 'Being incompetent, dishonest and without a leg to stand on' would be a more valid reason, but, hey, can't have everything I suppose.

Many thanks to everyone for their invaluable help.

Coupon-mad

Well done!

Rooman007

Don't know if anyone can help my boy got a letter off these muppets saying pay now lol my boys was in there early in the day for 10 min and then went back 7 hours later now they are saying he parked up for 8 hours my boy has a life why would he park up in mc Donald's for that long I know he likes a burger but that is taking the Micky please help do I live it or do I get in touch with them all the best peeps and thanks in advance