McDonald's & MET - almost a month later

Coupon-mad

cinereus wrote: »

Thanks for the help guys. I submitted the comments by email and they denied two days later with some gross misrepresentations of my claim. Guess nothing more to be done now.

Well nothing more you need to do anyway, and certainly you don't actually PAY it!

Hope you realised that? POPLA is not binding on you and MET don't sue, so your position is the same as someone who missed the POPLA deadline all along and you will be in 'ignore the debt collector letters' mode (see post #4 of the NEWBIES thread which covers it in depth - nothing to be concerned about, nothing you need help with).

I've separated the awful POPLA wall of words they always send, into paragraphs:

The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle, “[remained] at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation” at McDonalds Canning Town on 18 July 2016.

The appellant states:
- the operator has not adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
- He is questioning the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs at the site.
- He advises that the signage is unclear.
- He says the PCN is an “unfair, unenforceable penalty”.
- He states the operator’s signs do not show that an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is in use or what the data is used for.
- He believes the operator should have applied a grace period.
- He says the motorist was delayed in departing the car park due to the vehicle experiencing a break down.
- He advises the operator is applying a £1.50 surcharge for payment by card.

The terms and conditions state: “90 Minutes Maximum Stay” and that “If you do not comply with the Terms and Conditions of Use, a Parking Charge Notice may be issued”.

The operator’s case file includes photographs of the signage at the site clearly showing these terms and the amount of the parking charge at £100. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 09:43 and departing at 11:29, for a total stay of 106 minutes.

Conclusion/Judgement

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing PCNs. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent)”. This “must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for”. In particular, it must say that the landowner “requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided POPLA with an extract of the contract between itself and the landowner, a letter of authority and a system print-off, which in combination I am satisfied meets the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, under section 18.1 states: “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 continues: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided me with photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question, including the entrance sign. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied that the motorist had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract.

The appellant has said that the PCN is an “unfair, unenforceable penalty”. <I have snipped POPLA's woefully embarrassing 'we've swallowed the Beavis case as if it covers all parking charges' drivel template - AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL MISUNDERSTANDING AND APPARENTLY BPA-STEERED REGURGITATION OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT, POPLA - THIS DOES POPLA NO FAVOURS AT ALL AS AN 'INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE' AND THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH TEMPLATE SHOULD BE BINNED. >

Regarding the site being monitored by an ANPR system, the BPA Code of Practice, section 21.1 advises that “signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by the ANPR cameras for”. The photographs of the signage show they clearly display that the site is monitored by ANPR systems and states: “Patrols and/or automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras monitor vehicle activity in this private car park” and that it “may be contact the DVLA to request the Registered Keeper’s details and send a Parking Charge Notice”. Therefore, I consider the operator to have sufficiently shown the site is monitored by ANPR cameras and explained the purpose of them.

The appellant is also questioning whether the operator should have applied a grace period in this instance. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.4, regarding “Grace periods”, states that operator’s “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended…the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes". The appellant says the vehicle was delayed to due to experiencing a break down. However, no evidence has been provided to support this and no reason for the delay in departure has been given. Therefore, I cannot conclude that 16 minutes is a reasonable grace period in this instance.

The appellant believes the amount of the PCN exceeds the maximum permitted by the BPA Code of Practice. However, I can see that the PCN and the signs both state the amount is £100. It appears that the appellant is referring to a surcharge for payment by card, but there is no obligation to pay by card and other payment methods are available.

As such, the operator correctly issued the PCN and I must refuse this appeal. For clarity, any customer service issues regarding the way the operator dealt with the appellant’s initial appeal are outside of POPLA’s remit. We are an impartial appeal service, not a regulatory body.

Seems like POPLA have finally got rid of the hilariously unprofessional 'rational' typo (when they meant 'rationale') and replaced it with 'conclusion/judgement'.

Big deal, POPLA. Get the decisions 99% right about grace periods and observation periods (16 minutes all told very obviously falling within these TWO periods) and train your staff properly on the POFA and we forumites will take you seriously - the previous POPLA provider was well thought of with intelligent Assessors and reasoning based on the law and facts and an eye for detail. Praise where praise WAS due.

Umkomaas

The appellant has said that the PCN is an “unfair, unenforceable penalty”. <I have snipped POPLA's woefully embarrassing 'we've swallowed the Beavis case as if it covers all parking charges' drivel template - AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL MISUNDERSTANDING AND APPARENTLY BPA-STEERED REGURGITATION OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT, POPLA - THIS DOES POPLA NO FAVOURS AT ALL AS AN 'INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE' AND THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH TEMPLATE SHOULD BE BINNED. >

In the same vein, I find it appalling that they are interpreting the Supreme Court ruling on the level at which a charge is 'neither extravagant nor unconscionable' by this statement of nonsense.

Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

Who are POPLA to decide this? How do they know that had the PE charge been £100, the SC decision would have been the same? Where is the tipping point?

cinereus

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well nothing more you need to do anyway, and certainly you don't actually PAY it!

Hope you realised that? POPLA is not binding on you and MET don't sue, so your position is the same as someone who missed the POPLA deadline all along and you will be in 'ignore the debt collector letters' mode (see post #4 of the NEWBIES thread which covers it in depth - nothing to be concerned about, nothing you need help with)

Cheers. I wrote back to them a few days ago reiterating the points both of you made but don't expect any coherent response.

They are now fully on ignore mode...

cinereus

Few months later, two red letters from "Debt Recovery Plus" but still no formal paperwork so I assume I keep ignoring them?

Umkomaas

Ignore everything other than a LBA or MCOL court papers. DRP cannot issue any of them.