McDonalds - MetParking - Popla appeal

Blix

I know what you mean. Fortunately not me. Unfortunately my son. I'm annoyed he frequents this place so much but it's just down the road from his college and all his friends go. I'm also annoyed that he drives (and hence got this ticket) as it literally is in sight of his college. Kids!!

Blix

Hello.
I began THIS thread initially but have now received a response from my appeal to Popla and would like some advice at to what is best to reply via the 2000 character reply box.

Met parking have basically (and predictably) said the invoice was issued lawfully so my appeal has been refused.
I'm not sure how to proceed. This is what they said, in addition to two accompanying PDFs.

---

In his appeal to POPLA Mr xxx states that the signage in the car park is not adequately displayed or clear enough. He also states that we have not demonstrated that the individual we are pursuing is the driver. Lastly he states that we have not provided evidence of landowner authority. We note Mr xxx’s comments, however we are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs in place in the car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. We have also included images of the signs taken at night in order to demonstrate that they remain visible in the hours of darkness. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the sated terms and conditions. We would also like to refer the assessor to the end of Section E of our evidence pack, where we have included evidence of our contract with the landowner, in the form of a letter of authority from the landowner and extracts from the contract. We also note Mr xxx’s comments regarding the fact that we have not proved that he is the driver, however as he has not provided us with the driver’s details and has not identified himself as the driver, we are pursuing him as the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In Section C of our evidence pack we have provided a full explanation as to why we may pursue Mr xxx under PoFA. We have also included the Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack and we are confident it meets the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 13 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that the car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum stay in the car park of 90 minutes. As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, Mr xxx’s vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. In light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

---

Thanks very much in advance if anyone is able to advise me.

Kind regards : )

pogofish

You need to get this merged with your original thread. Multiple threads on the same ticket will only confuse matters and impact on the quality of help you get here.

Le_Kirk

pogofish wrote: »

You need to get this merged with your original thread. Multiple threads on the same ticket will only confuse matters and impact on the quality of help you get here.

Just send a PM to either Crabman, savvy or soolin and ask them to merge the threads.

Blix

OK. I have requested this and would still be grateful of any advice.

Thanks again

KeithP

Wait and see if you get either court papers or a Letter Before Claim.

Post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread explains in the greatest detail exactly how to deal with any debt collector's letters you might receive.

I've not looked at your earlier thread, but what did McDs say when you complained to them?

Blix

National McD referred me to this particular 'restaurant' which is a franchise. The franchise said once the invoice had been issued there was nothing they could do. I replied to both national & franchise saying they had a duty of care to their customers and that if i lost my appeal, I'd consider small claims action against them for any loss. Neither replied.
It was actually my son in the McD the whole time with his girlfriend and toddler in the play area.

Blix

I'm not sure if anyone is there but I think I need to complete the popla appeal form by today.
My questions are:

My initial appeal to Met asked for the Popla code, which they didn't supply within their reply. I had to ask for it again.
Not all signs in the car park mentioned the fine in the same way or prominently.
Most of the signs are above car height & above head height
They have provided a copy of their contract with McD but this doesn't clarify if McD are the land owner, merely the instigator of the contracting of MET.

Hopefully someone might be able to guide me. If not, I'll just have to proceed with the above.

Thanks either way : )

Crabman

Threads have been merged

Coupon-mad

Blix wrote: »

I'm not sure if anyone is there but I think I need to complete the popla appeal form by today.
My questions are:

My initial appeal to Met asked for the Popla code, which they didn't supply within their reply. I had to ask for it again.
Not all signs in the car park mentioned the fine in the same way or prominently.
Most of the signs are above car height & above head height
They have provided a copy of their contract with McD but this doesn't clarify if McD are the land owner, merely the instigator of the contracting of MET.

Hopefully someone might be able to guide me. If not, I'll just have to proceed with the above.

You might well find MET win this POPLA case.

You will find they don't do court, so nothing else will happen except ignoring letters.