McDonald's sign photo

Umkomaas

mentalmumof4 wrote: »

Well worded - we can save £'s and lose lbs!

I like quoting back to them their clever-d!ck sentences. Suffice to say I did it this time, and with interest!

System

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

But given the signs are many feet up a pole, how are you supposed to read the detailed wording describing the circumstances where the driver might be liable? There is a case for saying that it was not possible to read the detail due to the height of the signs and the size of the lettering.

Stop and get out? If you can't read that sign stood near it you shouldn't be driving.

Umkomaas

Tarambor wrote: »

Stop and get out? If you can't read that sign stood near it you shouldn't be driving.

How about the small print on this one when it's 8 feet up?



Any good?

beamerguy

Tarambor wrote: »

Stop and get out? If you can't read that sign stood near it you shouldn't be driving.

Stop and get a ticket from a scammer.

Just imagine, you are in a car park, eyes off the road
looking at signs and a child runs in front of you

If only life is as simple as you suggest .... if only

beamerguy

mentalmumof4 wrote: »

Thank you for contacting us and again for the opportunity to comment, and I am sorry we are not in a position to assist in this instance."

So now I will continue with my popla appeal and also try to speak to a Manager at the restaurant again.
I will also post on social media for good measure.

As I said earlier .....

"McD's have not got good customer service worked out yet"


Don't go to McD's again, it will be good for your wealth
and health .....

mentalmumof4

I have now been provided with the evidence pack MET have submitted to popla.
The photos of the signage they have provided are generic and not specific to the car park the driver in this case was parked in. ( I can tell from the shops etc in the back ground)
Where do I stand with this? Tomorrow I will also post on here the plan they have provided of where the signs are, a whole area not being covered.
I would appreciate any tips on how to write comments, I have 5 more days to respond.

Umkomaas

The photos of the signage they have provided are generic and not specific to the car park the driver in this case was parked in. ( I can tell from the shops etc in the back ground)
Where do I stand with this? T

That's the type of rebuttal you carry out on every bit of their evidence that's not 'right', or you disagree with, or which is plain 'wrong'.

Not rebutting any part of their evidence might be read by POPLA as you accepting it as being correct.

While you rebut as above, be aware that you only have 2,000 characters to do it in (note - characters, not words), so you have to be brief, no waffley, leggy sentences. Use bullet points where possible.

Coupon-mad

Just write short bullet point comments on each piece of evidence you can rebut. No new evidence.

mentalmumof4

This is the "evidence" MET provided to POPLA;

"On 20 May 2018 vehicle XXXXXX was recorded entering the car park and registering a
stay of 179 minutes, 89 minutes longer than the 90 minute maximum permitted stay.
Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA and a parking charge notice
was issued to the registered keeper.
On 14 June 2018 we received an appeal from the registered keeper, Mrs XXXX, on
the grounds that the signage in the car park is inadequate. She requested all the
photographic evidence and data we had collected in relation to her vehicle and claimed
that operate in disregard of GDPR and ICO rules.
Having completed their investigation our appeals team wrote to the appellant explaining
that the appeal had been rejected and why.
In her appeal to POPLA Mrs XXXX raises sever grounds of appeal:
1. We have not shown that the individual we are pursuing is the driver.
As stated in Section C of our evidence pack, the registered keeper has not provided the
name and serviceable address of the driver, thus we are pursuing the registered keeper
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Please also find
our Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. We are confident that we have
complied with the requirements of POFA 2012.
2. Inadequate Signage.
We are confident that there is a sufficient number of signa in place in this car park and
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 in place taken at
night in order to demonstrate that they remain visible in the hours of darkness. It
remains the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with
the stated terms and conditions.
3. No evidence of landowner authority.
Please see the end of Section E of our evidence pack, where we have included evidence
of our contract with the landowner. This contract grants us the authority to form
contracts with motorists at this location and issue parking charge notices for contractual
breach.
4. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and ICO Code of Practice.
Whilst we note that this point of appeal is not relevant to the fact that the motorist failed
to comply with the notified terms and conditions of parking for the sake of completeness
we are confident that our signs meet the appropriate requirements of the Code of
Practice and the ICO and are amended in line with the introduction of new legislation or
amendments to the Code and ICO guidance from time to time. In this regard we note
that the charge notice was issued prior to the introduction of GDPR and the Data
Protection Act 2018.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 20 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!!!8217;s customers whilst on the premises 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, Miss XXXX 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."

"We believe we can pursue the registered keeper for payment of the charge notice as:
1. The land on which the vehicle was parked was private land and falls within the
definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act.
2. The driver of the vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking
charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land and the charges have
not been paid in full.
3. We have the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay
the unpaid charges but are unable to take steps to enforce that requirement because
we do not know the name and current address for service of the driver.
4. We have given a notice to the keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4
of The Protection of Freedoms Act, this notice:
a. Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on whit it was parked and the period
of parking to which the notice relates;
b. Informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay the charges and they
have not been paid in full;
c. Describes the charges due, the circumstances and other facts that made
them payable;
d. Specifies the amount unpaid;
e. States that we do not know the name and address of the driver and invites
the keeper to either pay the charges or advise us of the name and address
of the driver;
f. Warns the keeper that if we after the specified time the charges are not paid
in full and we still do not know the name and address of the driver we may
(subject to having met all the criteria) have the right to recover the
outstanding sums from the registered keeper;
g. Informs the registered keeper of the prompt payment discount and
arrangements for dispute resolution;
h. Identifies ourselves as the creditor and specifies how to make to payment to
us or correspond with us;
i. Specifies the date of sending the notice;
j. Specifies the Creditor.
5. The notice contains appropriate evidence by way of date stamped photographs
6. The notice was given in accordance with sub-paragraph 9(4), 11 and 12 in all relevant
respects.
7. The timetable of events is listed below:
a. The contravention took place on 20 May 2018
b. The registered keeper details were received from the DVLA 28 May 2018 and
the Notice to Keeper was sent the same day.
The full details of the Notice to Keeper can be viewed in Section B above.
As the registered keeper has not provided us with the name and current address for
service of the driver of the vehicle, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment
of the outstanding parking charge notice."

"MET Parking Services Ltd are contracted by McDonald!!!8217;s to ensure adherence to the
terms and conditions of the car park. Our interest in the land arises from our
obligation to perform our contractual duties by ensuring provision can be made for
motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client!!!8217;s premises.
The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered this point and held
that ParkingEye had contracted with the motorist as a principal and not as agent and
the contract had been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the
motorist parking his car on the site.
We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted contract between
ourselves and our client as it contains information which is commercially sensitive and
not relevant in this instance. It also extends to more than 20 pages and therefore the
volume of redacted information will be significantly greater than the volume of unredacted
and relevant information.
We have however provided the letter of authority, the signature page and front sheet
of the contract demonstrating it is the contract referred to in the letter of authority
and the clause from the contract that demonstrates this is rolling contract and subsists
until terminated.
We note POPLA are often asked to consider whether the contract existed
at the date of the contravention and as you can see from the extract from
the contract held with McDonald!!!8217;s this agreement has a commencement
date of 31 August 2010 as this was the date it was signed by the client and
is agreed for an initial period of 9 months after which point it becomes an
ongoing agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We can confirm
that neither McDonald!!!8217;s nor MET Parking have applied the notice
provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. Consequently
we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that the contract provided
adequately proves that MET Parking had sufficient authority to issue
parking charges on the land, on the day of the contravention. This is also
evidenced by the fact that McDonald!!!8217;s permitted MET Parking!!!8217;s parking
enforcement signs to be prominently displayed on the site at that time and
to this date."


I am unable to post the images they provided as they are all part of the same pdf file but I will keep trying. There is a site map which shows an area not covered by signage and they have provided generic signs not particular to the car park in question.

Any help on what I could put as comments would be gratefully received, I'm stuck on all but signage.

Redx

1) they say that they complied with POFA2012, wording and timescales ? have they ? if not then you will say that they have failed POFA2012

they also state they have not identified the keeper as the driver, so if they failed pofa 2012 then you state they failed to transfer liability from driver to keeper

check their signage and plan is correct and the signs are illuminated at night etc, point out any errors, including if its not the correct car park location which you seem to infer

check the contract , is it redacted ? , is it signaged and dated ? , has it expired ? if its heavily redacted and/or isnt in date, not been signed by the landowner or their legal agent etc , they fail, so find those errors (if any)

once you have checked their docs, do a short rebuttal in under 2000 characters, I would suggest you find other recent rebuttals and adapt one of those as its only a short section

you cannot post images on here , only live (or dead links) to other sites