McDonalds Car Park Gatwick: Parking Charge for not Validating a Ticket

P3dr0

We received on the 17/07/2018 a Notice to Registered Keeper from MET Parking Services with date of the alleged contravention 30 May 2018 stating: "the vehicle with reg no. XXXXX was observed parked in an apparent breach of the terms and conditions that are displayed on signs in prominent places around the parking area and that those motorists entering the site agree to be bound by. As a result, this parking charge notice, which is now immediately payable, has been issued. The reason for issuing the charge notice is: Failure to Validate stay in car park"

We went to McDonalds on the 30/05/2018, the 03/07/2018 and the 06/07/2018 and in all 3 occasions parked the car, ate inside and left the restaurant in less than 50 minutes (60 minutes free allowance). We have the credit card statements records showing we were genuine customers, but not the actual receipts or car park tickets.

We did not validate the car park tickets as we were not aware of this requirement at the time. We have not received any notices for the alleged "breaches" that we could have incurred during our visits on the 03/07/2018 and 06/07/2018 to date, but we fear we will.

We visited yesterday 17/07/2018 the restaurant and contacted the manager but he asked us to contact MET directly as there was nothing they could do. During this visit we tested the system and found that there are two big red signs displayed at this car park, but these can be seen from every space in the car park from the driver's seat can't be necessarily read.

One of these signs is directly opposite to the barrier and clearly seen in the photographic evidence printed in the NRK. However, a driver leaving the car park will be focusing his/her attention on the barrier's direction and the car in front and not on the sign by the fence. During the alleged offences there was a small queue leaving the car park and some drivers experienced problems with the system and had troubles opening the barrier.

The natural and sometimes almost instinctive reaction of many drivers when an automatic barrier does not open when the ticket is presented is to press the button and ask for assistance. MET has taken this action as a consent to pay a disproportionate car park charge for 60 minutes free parking.

To make matters worse, the barrier' screen is not readable during a bright day as the screen is too dark (all visits took place during bright sunny spells) and any text or messages presented on screen were not be visible under these conditions.

Today, we were on-foot and pressed the button at the exit barrier and the barrier lifted. The text on the screen could not be read as it was sunny, approximately at the same time as the previous visits. Surely can't be considered as an agreement to pay car park charges and illustrates how the system is setup to levy charges against ticket validation instead of misuse/abuse of the facilities.

No member of staff inside the caf! offered us to validate the car park ticket or had any signs related to the car park validation requirements.

We would like to start the appeal procedure available at MET website, but not quite sure if we should "bundle" our three visits together or one at the time. We understand that after three visits not seeing the red big signs maybe difficult to believe but, we genuinely did not see any until these were pointed out by the restaurant manager, which illustrates how poor the signage positioning and prominence is in real life terms and how little attention we give to signposts constantly bombarding our senses.

We were thinking to adapting the NEWBIES reques of appeal and include all three visits, even though only the notice for the 30/05/2018 has been received. We would really appreciate any advice provided on this matter and going forward with the POPLA.

Many thanks in advanced.

Redx

each pcn will be dealt with separately, so only deal with one if you only have one (any others are dealt with if a pcn or pcn,s are received)

the template appeal is used for the initial appeal, without any changes

post #3 of that thread has POPLA help

also look at any other MET appeals that were done in the last 12 months , especially for that location, plagiarise them as much as you like , you arent the first and wont be the last either


also complain in writing to MICKEY DEES head office too , as the local manager lied

KeithP

The keeper should appeal each PCN as they are received.

Do not try and amalgamate these tickets into one appeal.

Appeal each PCN separately using the blue text template appeal found in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

No need to change or add to the appeal text - send it just as it is.

Do not disclose the driver's identity to anyone.

Half_way

contacted the manager but he asked us to contact MET directly as there was nothing they could do.

He has lied to you, either through stupidity on his part, and attempt to fob you off , or as a tactic to get you to pay up.
The Mc Donalds franchise/location will be jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents, if they say cancel then MET will have no choice but to follow the instructions of the principal ( mc donalds)

P3dr0

Received an email today from MET yesterday rejecting my appeal.

This email also have a POPLA verification code and states that I could appeal to POPLA or the Ombudsman Services and continues: "By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above"

They have also included 7 phots telling their side of the story and a copy of the signpost on-site.

I would assume that must start the appeal process with POPLA?

...but wonder why MET does not participate in the Ombudsman Service?

Awaiting eagerly for your advice regarding what to do next? Should I acknowledge this email at all after specifically asking MET to contact me my post in my rejection letter? What to include in this POPLA appeal? What should my communication/letter say?

This is my 1st time doing something like this and is fairly stressful, must confess..!

Thanks very much to Redx, KeithP and Half_way, much appreciated.

KeithP

That's a perfectly standard letter.

Yes, you need to crack on with your PoPLA appeal.

Read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly how to do that.

Sticking PoPLA Gatwick into the forum search facility and choosing show posts will bring up many ideas. Including this successful appeal:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74271416

KeithP

On a quick glance I would suggest that your paragraph starting "As a registered keeper of this vehicle..." needs adjustment.

I had to read it a couple of times to realise that you are talking about a visit to the site at some time after the date of the alleged transgression.
The first time I read it, it looked like the registered keeper was effectively admitting to being the driver at the time.

It would be a shame if the PoPLA assessor came to the same wrong conclusion.

Umkomaas

You need to do a 'Find & Replace' on 'MET Parkin' (there's a number with the letter 'g' missing).

Your preamble before the actual appeal looks (to me) a little bit too much of a narrative ramble. Too many 'I's. Probably too much information that the assessor is unlikely have great interest in as it won't materially affect the decision - unless he/she draws any incorrect inferences!

Can you sharpen it up a bit and from more of a detached angle?

The_Deep

Even if PoPLA allow this charge I cannot see a judge doing so. Wanting a £100 damages for such a minor breach of a contract is, in my opinion, trifling, and the Law does not concern itself with trifles, and a judge may well think that £300 for three such trifle was a scam. He/she may well consider it de minimis.

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 House of Commons recently

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

The_Deep

Personally, I would not bother PoPLA, but then, I have always been an awkward old !!!!!!.

Fruitcake

Personally I think there is too much waffle in the preamble. You don't need to say the keeper visited the site. You just use the Inadequate Signage point, and include your own photos to back this up, especially ones of the screen by the barrier taken in daylight showing that the words on said screen cannot be read.

I agree as above that there is too much use of the word "I" and a PoPLA assessor might mistake the comments about the site visit as coming from the driver on the date of the alleged event.
I certainly had difficulty following the narrative.

In addition, you do not need, " I would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal."

"Here is my appeal as keeper", is all you really need.

You also need to correct spelling (where not were) and formatting errors (!!!8217;t).

Use statements of fact.
"There are no signs in the cafe about needing to enter a VRN to validate parking. Take photos of the interior as proof."

"The driver was not informed by any staff member of this requirement either."