SUCCESS - MET - Mcdonalds PCN

adam5816

Hi all,
I have already posted this on PePiPoo but decided to also post on here for any advice/suggestions

Long story short, at roughly 1:30am the driver of the alleged NTK entered McDonald’s drive through and ended up staying on premises until 3:30am - 30 minute overstaying the 1 hour 30 limit.

As the registered keeper, I have appealed the alleged invoice using the MSE template from the newbies thread. - Driver has not been identified in the appeal not that it seems to matter to them anyway because the NtK is pretty clear in their intent to pursue registered keeper. - Obvious rejection including POPLA code has been linked below.

Any suggestions? - appeal to POPLA, pay up or just ignore , all correspondence including signs (which appear 100% solid) attached (Again, my appeal was word to word the MSE newbies template, driver not identified).

Images
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=63762
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=63761
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=63759
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=63758
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=63763

Appreciate any advice at this stage, kind of lost on what to do.

fisherjim

What do you mean the signs are 100% solid, really, I can't read all that minute lettering on them on site and I have good eyesight.


The MSE template isn't expected to get many PPC's to cancel but starts the ball rolling and will pave the way to the next stage in this case POPLA.


Why wouldn't you use your POPLA code?


You will get similar advice on here as Pepipoo as many of the regulars here post there too

adam5816

Thank you for the quick reply,

by solid I meant that the size of the 'charge' stating £100 is the same as the writing stating maximum 90 minute stay. - Just wanted to get some opinions on where I stand in this as the keeper.

thanks for your help.

Castle

Using the drive through is not parking.

Coupon-mad

Yep, drive-thru use cannot be 'parking' so that account for some of the time.

The NtK is a POFA one:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=63758

Do POPLA, like everyone else with a MET McDonalds one does, they usually win so read a few by searching the forum. MET don't sue anyone so there is no risk except the bribe/discount to fifty quid disappears (not a bargain - we seek to pay £0!).

YOU CANNOT PAY AND APPEAL.

Do the latter like all the other MET POPLA cases you care to read.

adam5816

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep, drive-thru use cannot be 'parking' so that account for some of the time.

The NtK is a POFA one:

Do POPLA, like everyone else with a MET McDonalds one does, they usually win so read a few by searching the forum. MET don't sue anyone so there is no risk except the bribe/discount to fifty quid disappears (not a bargain - we seek to pay £0!).

YOU CANNOT PAY AND APPEAL.

Do the latter like all the other MET POPLA cases you care to read.

Thanks for giving me some hope ,

I read through other McDonald’s cases but I was beginning to think that the signs put up in my case were quite strongly against the driver as this was a fairly new McDonald’s so assumed that MET most likely upped their game by learning from past mistakes. E.g. signage right at entrance and a few around the car park, and signage outlining fine in large font same size as the parking time limit.

But will go ahead and formulate my POPLA appeal now after getting more pictures of the location and reading other examples again.

Will be back with my draft for opinions , appreciate all the advice!! Thanks

Coupon-mad

No parking firm ups their game. They are all in the gutter and their signs dross!

adam5816

So I appealed the parking charge through POPLA as a keeper, MET have just replied through a 13 page PDF file refuting each point one by one. I have entailed the summary of their appeal below;

"In his appeal to POPLA, Mr ******** raises the following grounds of appeal:

• The signs are not prominent, clear or legible We note Mr ****** comments however we are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs 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 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 stated terms and conditions.
• No evidence of landowner authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
• The NTK does not meet the requirements of PoFA We are confident that we have complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section E of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack.
• The entrance sign is inadequately positioned and does not comply with Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice As demonstrated in the overview of the site found in Section E the road the car park is accessed from is one-way, and therefore the entrance sign is positioned to be seen approaching from the direction of travel. We are confident that the signs, which are made using retro-reflective material that meets BS EN 12899 - 1:2007 class RA2, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs, are set at the height recommended for Road Traffic Signs, and that there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists. The signs are visible during the hours of darkness as they reflect light from the lamp posts they are fixed to, ambient light and light from vehicles themselves. It remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
• ANPR is unreliable and inaccurate Our ANPR cameras are peripherals attached to a central computer system. The computer’s clock is kept accurate using the internet. The date and time stamps on the ANPR images are accurate and consistent as they are provided by the computer system and not the peripheral. We are confident that we conduct the necessary checks and tests to ensure ANPR quality. Our systems and processes are also regularly audited by the BPA. We do not believe we need to provide copies of these audits at this time.
• The signs do not adequately advise what the ANPR data will be used for As can be seen in Section E of our evidence pack, the signage clearly states that there is CCTV/ANPR in effect in this car park and that by entering the area motorists consent to the recording of their data for the purposes of managing the car park,
• No information regarding motorist’s rights in relation to their data and no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate The signage in Section E also clearly advises motorists of their rights in relation to their data and where to find our full privacy policy. This information is also available on the Notice to Keeper, a copy of which may be found in Section B. We do not believe we need to disclose our privacy impact assessments at this time.
• The photographic evidence does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice We are confident that the photographs meet the necessary requirements. As can be seen in Section E of our evidence pack there is only one vehicle entrance and exit to the location, and the ANPR cameras are placed in a way to only capture vehicles that enter and exit the site. In summary, the terms and conditions for the use of the car park are clearly stated on signs displayed prominently at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that this car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only and there is a maximum stay of 90 minutes. Mr ******** 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."

Any opinions on this appeal, - looks like I've just been ripped apart time to give up?.



ttp://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=64280

ttp://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=64281

ttp://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=64282

ttp://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=64284

ttp://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=64283

Coupon-mad

None of the signs in the dark have a readable large font £100 penalty on them!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=64284

They don't match the 'daylight pics' of signs and none are dated. So which ones are we to believe? The 'daylight pics' are a different design entirely so either the daylight ones or the nighttime ones are from a different McDonalds entirely (or from a different date).

The drive-thru picture in daylight proves it has NO CONTRACTUAL signs at all, and time spent there is not parking time anyway, and clearly not restricted by MET as they choose to confirm in their own evidence that that corner is completely unsigned.

The landowner letter is three years old, talking about a 2010 contract that does not state the expiry date nor confirm that the contract continues into perpetuity. it is mentioned in 2016 as a rolling contract but we are now in 2019.

Nor does that letter meet all the BPA CoP requirements 7 a-e as set out in the appeal and the contract is pre-POFA and heavily redacted.

looks like I've just been ripped apart time to give up?

Errrm, no. It's time to comment and shoot down the evidence.

Even if people lose v MET at POPLA, you do realise no-one pays?! You missed that?

adam5816

Thanks for the advice, you’ve given me hope and motivated me again, not letting these disgusting companies rob me of hard earned money, they’re not getting a penny out of me.

Time to scrutinise their evidence one by one like they did mine. - will keep you all updated

adam5816

Just to keep you updated, comments made on their evidence (hope you don't mind, used your wording);


Under heading 'Night time photographs', none of the photographs entailed match the 'daytime photograph' signs included above them. The 'night time pics' do not have a readable large font of £100 penalty on them. None of the signs/pics of signs are dated so which photographed signs are we to believe?. The 'Daylight pics' are a different design entirely so either the daylight ones or the night time ones are from a different McDonalds entirely (or from a different date).

I note the pictures of the drive through signage, however time spent at drive through is not controllable by MET and does not form part of parking and therefore does not fall under the contractual 'parking' period.

The landowner letter is three years old, talking about a 2010 contract that does not state the expiry date nor confirm that the contract continues into perpetuity. It is mentioned in 2016 as a rolling contract but we are now in 2019. Nor does the letter meet all the BPA CoP requirements 7 a-e as set out in the appeal and the contract is pre-POFA and heavily redacted.

MET have described their ANPR system as being attached to a computer which is 'kept accurate using the internet'. The internet is not infallible and is still susceptible to faults and MET have failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove that their ANPR systems has actually been RECENTLY audited and maintained to date in order to prevent errors and ensure accuracy.

Lets see what happens!,