McDs & MET & lockdown - submitted appeal to MET before visiting forum! bad move! pls help...

Coupon-mad

Yes but I would add:
 'Please restore our faith and cancel this unfair parking charge'.

Le_Kirk

If you've already sent it, it is too late to use my advice which would be to be a lot more forceful with your requirement  and state that you expect them to instruct MET to cancel this unwarranted PCN immediately. 

D_P_Dance

Do they have a Facebook/Tripadvisor page?  if so write bad stuff on it if they are unhelpful. 

IduntExist

Thanks for the help so far. Just thought i'd post a quick update as I've had a response from mcdonalds.

Quoting "Michael Kelly (McDonald's Customer Services)" <md@mcdonalds.zendesk.com>:

Michael Kelly, May, BST:

Good morning

I am writing further to your email which has been passed for my attention from Paul Pomroy regarding your visit to our restaurant. I have noted your comments and welcome the opportunity to confirm our policy on this matter.

As a company, putting in place enforcements within our car parks is only done after careful consideration and very much as a last resort. Primarily, we use parking measures to ensure there are spaces available for our customers’ vehicles, as well as to deter unwarranted or unreasonably prolonged usage of the facility.

 I can confirm this parking area is managed by an independent company who are responsible for monitoring the car park and taking details of registration numbers. The regulations and signs at the restaurant clearly state the policy and the relevant charges.

 I trust you will appreciate that in order to maintain a consistent approach; we have to adhere to the guidelines in place. As such, in a situation such as a clear contravention of parking regulations, we are unable to deal with any specifics or cases on an individual basis. Suffice to say, if a customer contravenes the clearly displayed parking regulations, they will receive a ticket.

Thank you for contacting us and again for the opportunity to comment.

Kind regards
Michael Kelly
Team Leader
**Customer Services Team**
McDonald's UK Customer Services.....

I get the feeling they didn't read the email properly or simply don't care if they cause their customers to incur fines... 
They've completely lost me as a customer, Probably done me a favor. 
I've now submitted my popla appeal with the snippet @Coupon-mad wrote in the other post.

Coupon-mad

Personally, I would not let that lie without a reply back telling him it is not acceptable to fob customers off and not actually read the contents and facts about the complaint.  Ask him to have another go.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, point out that this is a complete failure to even read the complaint, and their lack of concern for customers will be happily publicised, 

beamerguy

That Mcd's letter is a prime example of very poor customer service and can be classed as a "Jobsworth"
The team leader talks pure waffle and you should be telling the CEO this

MistyZ

Customer Services clap-trap.

How can Michael Kelly determine that this amounted to 'such a clear contravention of parking regulations' without having considered the specifics?  And waiting an hour or more to receive a meal is surely a very clear contravention / negation of the term 'fast food' which is what every single customer expects when visiting McDonalds.  

Had the staff not read all these clear signs detailing parking policy?  They presumably have had ample opportunity in which to do so, far more so than any customer.  So why are they not instructed to alert customers whose food is delayed to the risk of receiving a massive surcharge on the meal?

It's such a disgraceful fob-off.  And par for the course because of course they ain't seen nothing yet, please gird your loins (whatever that means) and contact the CEO straight away.  This could take a few emails.

D_P_Dance

Facebook  -  TripAdvisor - bad stuff

IduntExist

Thanks for all your help guys, I don't believe I would have been able to do this without it.
So after submitting a response to METs weak comments where they lied and accused the keeper of being the driver without any proof and only a comment from the keeper that they were simply present on the "date of contravention" with their vehicle, I have a decision from POPLA, pasted below. Some elements have been redacted for privacy etc.

A few notes before the POPLA decisions 
- The signs at this site that MET evidenced in their comments are still well out of the bounds of the COP and BPA guidelines. its is comical that all of the signs are so high up you need a ladder to read the text of that size and many are in areas that people would not be parking any ways, for example throughout the drive thru section or down the exit path behind the building.
- I have not since and will not ever be visiting a McDonalds that has MET nor any other car park management services equipment installed. I am also very reluctant to give this company, who act all family friendly and caring my custom ever again. (i prefer burger king personally if I want a dirty treat). They have shown their true selfish unsympathetic greed to me with their ignorant communication over this matter.  

Operator Name

MET Parking Services

Operator Case Summary:

In his appeal to POPLA Mr XXXX raises the following grounds of appeal: 

• No keeper liability Mr XXXX has acknowledged being the driver in the initial appeal and as the driver is liable as the party who breached the terms and conditions. We are not seeking to rely on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Mr XXXX stated, “[comment made by keeper about being at the site on the day and not leaving said site without vehicle]” 

• No grace period The BPA Code of Practice states that a 10-minute grace period must be given at the end of a permitted period of parking. This has been provided and the motorist exceeded the maximum permitted stay by more than the 10-minute grace period. There is no requirement to add a grace period prior to the parking event commencing. The appellant appears to be using an outdated version of the Code of Practice as paragraph 13.2 of the current, 2020 version of the Code states “The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place.”

 • The signage is inadequate 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 signs made of the same material taken in low lighting in order to demonstrate that they remain visible in the hours of darkness due to the retro-reflective material they are constructed with. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. 

• No landowner authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. 

 • The images of the vehicle breach the Code of Practice The evidence provided is fully compliant with the BPA Code. Whilst we note POPLA are fully aware of how the ANPR cameras work, we will explain this in simple terms for the benefit of the appellant. The cameras are fixed cameras with specific designations that are set for the locations where they are erected so that all data received from the cameras can be allocated against the specific location. The images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the locations which include the numberplate of the vehicle are date and time stamped at source with the date and time on the relevant camera being updated against the atomic clock. An enlarged section of these two date and time stamped images focusing on the numberplate is included for the benefit of the motorist. 

• The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate We have cameras placed at the entrance and exit that record vehicles entering and exiting the car park and will only generate a parking charge if an overstay occurs, such as in this instance. Our cameras meet industry standards and our practices relating to them adhere to the requirements of the British Parking Association of which we are a member. 

• No planning permission or advertising consent All relevant permissions have been granted; we do not believe we need to provide evidence at this time. 

The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 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’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 and the driver acknowledges, the 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.

POPLA assessment and decision

26/10/2020

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site either for longer than authorised or without authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that the PCN was not issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. He states that the relevant grace period was not allowed. He states that signs on site did not make the terms, including the PCN amount, clear. He states that he has not been identified as the vehicle’s driver when it was parked on site. He states that there is no evidence the operator had the landowner’s authority to operate on site on the date in question. He states that the photographs of his vehicle included on the PCN did not comply with the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He states that the camera system in use on site is not reliable or accurate. He states that the operator did not obtain relevant planning permission for the cameras or signs on site. He states that the driver was delayed on site by the actions of the restaurant. The appellant has provided a document in which he elaborates on the above grounds in great detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator states in its evidence that the appellant identified himself as the vehicle’s driver when appealing the charge directly, however having reviewed the content of the original appeal I cannot agree that this is correct. The appellant identified himself to the operator only as the vehicle’s registered keeper. He did accept that he had been present when the vehicle was parked, but he did not actually state that he had been driving at any point. He has specifically denied having been the driver within his appeal to POPLA. I will therefore be considering whether the appellant is liable for the charge as the vehicle’s registered keeper, not as its driver. In order to transfer liability for payment of a charge from the unidentified driver of a vehicle to the registered keeper of that vehicle, POFA requires that an operator must issue a “notice to keeper” by “handing it to the keeper” or “sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.” The relevant period is defined as “the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” The Act goes on to clarify that “a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered […] on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in England and Wales.” The alleged breach occurred on X February 2020 and the relevant period as defined above therefore ended on X March 2020. In order for the operator to transfer liability for the charge to the appellant, POFA requires that the notice to keeper must have been issued so as to be received by the appellant on or before that date. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN, which is dated XX March 2020 and cannot therefore be considered to have been received by the appellant until YY March 2020, being the second working day after it was posted. This date was outside of the required period. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator is within its legal rights to pursue the appellant for payment of the charge as the vehicle’s registered keeper under POFA. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.

<END OF DECISION>

MET expects drivers to follow their terms and conditions yet they clearly cannot function within the rules set out to them. Thanks again.