We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
McDonalds - MetParking - Popla appeal
Blix
Posts: 19 Forumite
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 : )
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 : )
Failed to load the poll.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards