I should know better - MET, McDonalds, England

AltheHibby

Deleted as very long

AltheHibby

Deleted as very long

AltheHibby

So, I found out today that MET have provided evidence. RK's evidence is as advised here.

I assume from the letter they previously sent the RK that no contract has been provided. (RK can't see as there was a problem with the POPLA site). So, we shall just have to beat them at POPLA.

I will keep you updated as I see/hear anything.

Thanks again for your help.

AltheHibby

Hi folks,

due to problems with the POPLA website, and me not being provided with MET's evidence until today (deadline day), I have only just completed comments on MET's evidence with the RK.

I have gone with 4 rebutalls of MET's evidence, which I summarised in the final paragraph for the RK:

I therefore submit that the evidence provided by MET does not meet the required standards for a contract to be formed with me as it:

a. Does not provide proof of ability to raise a PCN as the whole unredacted contract is not provided as requested;
b. Signage does not comply with GDPR 2018, rendering it incapable of forming a contract;
c. Does not contain adequate photographic evidence of the number plate on exit, and;
d. Does not provide proof that the ANPR is operating to a standard suitable to provide evidence of times of entry and (per paragraph 8) exit.

Re C, on seeing MET's photos in a larger format it is clear that the exit photo cannot be easily read, and that a white number plate is used for the enlargement. I have had the RK attach photos.

Does anyone have any comments on the (admittedly summarised) info above?

I also found this, which we copied for part of the appeal. It is from LinkedIn and contains advice to PPCs. As it is from a publicly available document I am attaching both the text and link.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gdpr-private-parking-katherine-neal
LinkedIn

AltheHibby

Deleted as there is now a working link

KeithP

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gdpr-private-parking-katherine-neal/

Why are you posting dead links?
You have been here long enough and have enough posts to be able to post live links.

AltheHibby

Thanks for the live link. It didn't seem to work for me. Probably my user stupidity!


I copied it to try to help. There is no copyright I could see as it's on LinkedIn.

Coupon-mad

I also found this, which we copied for part of the appeal. It is from LinkedIn and contains advice to PPCs. As it is from a publicly available document I am attaching both the text and link.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gdpr-private-parking-katherine-neal
LinkedIn

Hadn't seen that before but some of her opinion appears twaddle, IMHO. e.g. her comments about 'consent' to data processing being needed, even though higher up she said only ONE of the list need apply (not 'consent' then!).

And imagine actually assisting parking firm like that, as if they are a normal/acceptable and legitimate industry; surely there is a professional line a solicitor worth her salt would draw and it's a lot higher than the gutter.

AltheHibby

Last question. I promise!

RK has received an email saying the decision has been reached. POPLA site says the assessment is in progress.

Does it update overnight or is this a sign of a problem with their website?

AltheHibby

So, it turns out that POPLA have said the appeal is unsuccessful.

Among the reasons are:

Beavis: "Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable."

Contract: "Having reviewed the contract, I am satisfied that the operator has landowner authority to manage the car park and to have issued the PCN. "

ANPR: "ANPR footage is generally accurate and unless appellants provide clear evidence to show that it is incorrect, we proceed on the basis that it is accurate. As the appellant has provided no evidence to show that their vehicle was not on site at the times shown by the ANPR cameras, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the operator’s images. "

Proof of whether the vehicle was onsite or not - see ANPR.

I am considering advising the RK that they should go back to POPLA as I believe there are clear procedural errors:

Beavis - irrelevant to the case as shown in court.

Contract: The full unredacted contract was not provided as requested. So they could not have reviewed it.

ANPR: Unless the appelant can show it not working, it is. No proof was provided by MET that it was working. It was also pointed out that the signs are not GDPR compliant. A point the assessor ignored.

Proof of location: Not for the driver or RK to prove.

What next? I know they dont do court, but the RK is wobbling.