SUCCESS - MET - Mcdonalds PCN

adam5816

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Sarah-Jane Dolman

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided these grounds of appeal:
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, the entrance sign is inadequately positioned and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself.
No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
No evidence of period parked – the NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The failure to comply with the data protections ‘ICO Code of practice’ applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate) a serious BPA CoP breach.
Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. The appellant has provided additional evidence for the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the driver is unknown, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant.
I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The signs state: “90 minutes maximum stay” and “If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged: £100”. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 01:27, and leaving at 03:27. They have remained in the car park for 1 hour 59 minutes.
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, the entrance sign is inadequately positioned and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself. I am satisfied that the operator has provided reasonable opportunity for the motorist to read the terms and conditions before deciding to remain. It is the responsibility of the motorist to make sure they are aware of the terms and conditions before deciding to remain. As they have remained, they have accepted the terms and conditions. I am also satisfied that the amount of the parking charge is clearly displayed on the signs.
No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a copy of their agreement with the land-owner. I am satisfied that at the time the motorist parked the contract was in place to allow the PCN to be issued, and that it was specific to the area the motorist parked.
No evidence of period parked – the NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. I am satisfied that the time noted on the PCN are the times the motorist entered and exited, and shows an accurate representation of the time spent in the car park. While all of the time in the car park may not have been spent parked, I am satisfied that the motorist was utilising the car park during this time.
The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. While I appreciate that the appellant states that the cameras are not accurate, they have not provided any evidence to show they are not. I am satisfied that the images and information provided by the ANPR is accurate.
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The operator has provided a copy of the signs and it confirms on the sign what the ANPR data will be used for.
The failure to comply with the data protections ‘ICO Code of practice’ applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate) a serious BPA CoP breach. It is not for POPLA to be assessing the operator’s compliance of the Information Commissioner’s Office’s Code of Practice. This is something they will have to raise separately with the ICO.
Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. I am satisfied that the images provided by the operator show that it the appellant’s vehicle. No evidence has been provided to show that it is not.
I note in the additional comments provided to the operator’s evidence, they have raised a point regarding the night time signs. While I appreciate this, the appellant has provided photos of the signs in the car park and I am satisfied that the images shown during the day by the operator are the signs and terms in the car park at the time the motorist entered the car park. I am also satisfied from the evidence provided by the appellant that the signs were adequately lit.
After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has not remained in the car park for longer than the maximum time allowed. As they have exceeded the stay authorised or without authorisation, the PCN has been issued. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

adam5816

Hey, just wondering, once lost at POPLA, is there anything additional to do or is it time to start binning letters

Thanks

KeithP

It certainly is not time to bin letters.

Although MET might seem pretty harmless at the moment, they have up to six years to work out how to sue you.

adam5816

So file letters for the moment, waiting for a court summons?,

KeithP

Well it won't be a summons, but yes, and keep all your evidence.

adam5816

Sorry don't want to keep wasting everyones time, is MET a litigious firm or have they been quite laid back?. - Just want to know what to expect from hereon.

Thanks,

The_Deep

Litigious or not, if you used the restaurant I feel that they would struggle in court to claim that staying an extra 30 minutes so damaged them that £100 is needed to repair the damage.

Especially if this is the case

I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has not remained in the car park for longer than the maximum time allowed.

Fruitcake

"… and has not remained in the car park for longer than the maximum time allowed."

Is that your typo or has the assessor failed to proof read their own reply?

As for the signs, they definitely do not meet the BPA CoP as the charge is in tiny font as opposed the charge on the signs in the Beavis case. That's why the signage template appeal point in the NEWBIES specifically refers to the Beavis signs.

Did you get to see the landowner contract and were you able to check dates and signatories etcetera?

From the Companies Act 2006.

44
Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

I think you should make a complaint to PoPLA that the assessor needs retraining as they have made procedural errors.

You should also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

adam5816

Hello, it is not my typo, that is copy paste from POPLA word for word and that confused me too when I saw it but apparently cant appeal POPLA anyway so what can I really do?.

They provided a 2010 contract and the below 2016 letter to confirm that the contract is still in existence, I pointed out that the letter is 3 years old but that was disregarded by the operator.

Operator seems to have sided with MET heavily and ignored even the fact that there was a discrepancy in the photographs which MET provided of their signage LOL. They provided different nighttime and day time signage, the night time signage did not show a penalty charge of £100 visible on it anywhere yet the operator decided to go with the daytime signage and say that she is confident that the signage was the daytime one on the time of my entry even though I was in the car park in the middle of the night just because the daytime signage had clear visible font of £100.

What an absolute joke

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

i THINK I will make a complaint to POPLA not that it will make a difference, I will also raise a complaint with my local MP

waamo

adam5816 wrote: »

Sorry don't want to keep wasting everyones time, is MET a litigious firm or have they been quite laid back?. - Just want to know what to expect from hereon.

Thanks,

MET currently don't do court. Whilst they send lots of scary letters they shy away from actually carrying out their threat.