McDonalds - MetParking - Popla appeal

Blix

I've just received the POPLA decision and, what do you know, my appeal was refused on the grounds of adequate signage and a reasonable estimate of the cost of this invoice despite no financial loss.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

Blix wrote: »

I've just received the POPLA decision and, what do you know, my appeal was refused on the grounds of adequate signage and a reasonable estimate of the cost of this invoice despite no financial loss.

As expected really. So you just ignore them now, as previously advised:

So are you saying, following an expected win by MET via my popla appeal, that I should just ignore any further correspondence with them? I'm happy to do this but, since I'm doing this on behalf of my son, it's probably really him who is liable and I don't want to adversely affect him or put him in a situation where he has to fight this.

Yes.

Same as you will (hopefully) have found when you didn't pay (obviously not) but instead searched the forum for POPLA lost as keywords.

Show us the decision, post it in 'POPLA Decisions' , link to this thread, stating that it was MET Parking.

Umkomaas

Here's the chances of this going any further than harmless and powerless debt collector letters:

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_Parking_Services.html

Almost a quarter of a million tickets issued in the past 3 years - not one single court case. Work out your son's odds for him if he gets shaky.

Blix

Thanks very much for your replies and advice. I'm very grateful for your time. I'll add the decision to the Popla Decisions in due course.

Coupon-mad

Blix wrote: »

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.

---

Same as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5824824

No big deal, ignore!