MET Parking Charge for overstaying at McDonalds (103 v 90 minutes)

pmlist

Hi, I am hoping to get some advice on a MET parking charge I received recently after a visit to a McDonalds restaurant.

I recently met with a group of friends at a McD's we have used for many years, and not even realised there was a parking time limit. It is in an industrial/retail area, not a city centre location, so I never even considered it may have a limit, let alone as short as 90 minutes.

When I arrived the restaurant itself was not open as they have made the opening time later, so we stood chatting in the car park. We had a few coffees inside and chatted, then left. In all it was apparently 103 minutes from my vehicle driving entering the car park to exiting it.

I knew about this forum, read the newbie section (very helpful!!) and acted on the advice.

The first step was I phoned the branch manager, but she said it was the parking company and there was nothing she could do about it.

I then emailed McD’s Customer Services, but they effectively said the same. I emailed a second time saying I could not believe that they were happy to let a parking company make money out of their loyal customers, and that I was surprised no discretion could be applied, but needless to say I didn’t get anywhere.

I then sent an appeal to MET Parking Services, using the wording from the blue template. I recently received the attached decision that they were upholding the charge. They have given a POPLA reference number so that is my next step.

I would very much welcome some advice on the best grounds for appeal. I haven’t divulged who the driver was, so they are still dealing with me as the registered keeper. I am minded to base my appeal on the Tallac wording as per the link below. I have to say though I’m not sure whether all of the appeal points are relevant to my case, and if it will hurt my chances if I accidentally leave something in that relates only to other cases. Also if there are other points I could usefully make.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6183205/popla-appeal-for-met-parking-services/p5

I feel that there are strong grounds based on the impact of COVID-19, i.e. it takes longer to enter and exit the car park, and also the restaurant itself. I have worded the paragraph below re wanting to know how they have modified there procedures in the light of the new requirements, and also built in a reference I saw to the entry/exit times being different to the actual parking time (vehicle stationary to moving again).

4. COVID-19 related delays are taken into account.

No grace period was stated or given, and due to the current Covid-19 restrictions entry to and exit from both the restaurant and parking area took longer than normal. According to the driver it took more than 10 minutes to enter the car park, comply with the CV19 requirements and enter the premises. Similarly on leaving there was a delay of 5 minutes in exiting the restaurant, getting to the vehicle and exiting the parking area due to the need to maintain social distance. I do not feel that this has been sufficiently taken into account in the form of a grace period.

In addition the timing given in the photographic evidence is based on the entry and exit times to and from the car park. This is different to the actual parking time which surely is the time the vehicle becomes stationary and the passengers leave it, to when they re-enter the vehicle and it starts to head towards the car park exit. There appears to be no allowance made for the time that takes, frequently longer during the current COVID-19 situation.

I would also like to see firm proof that the 90 minute parking limit and/or associated grace period has been modified to take into account the current COVID-19 related challenges in terms of entry and exit times.

 

 

Are these good grounds, and should I add it to the ones below from the Tallac wording?

1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

3. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

 

Any advice welcome, and apologies in advance if I have failed to read something and made some schoolboy errors already!!

Timeouts

Everything you say about delays caused by covid is correct and will be your main appeal to POPLA especially as you were following the rules and the law.

Make sure you read the NEWBIES thread and POPLA thread on the front page,

McDonalds have always played hardball and I suspect have lost customers for their poor attitude.
Anyone using McD'S SHOULD ONLY USE A DRIVE THRU as I would not trust them for safety inside

MET, just like all parking companies are cash strapped right now due to covid so they will say NO, desperation has set in.
POPLA are not that smart and probably will not understand so it's a 50/50 what they will do

As far as Debt collectors, you can ignore them as they are only vermin that can found in the McD;s rubbish bins. If you do start receiving debt collector letters mainly from DRP, .... burn them as they may have covid, make sure you wash your hands after.   These people are just circus clowns

Thereafter, there are a few daft legals hidden in the shadows that pop up and easily beaten

You are now in the game and it's good fun so don't worry about it. ..... just ignore debt collectors  and if a daft legal contacts you, let us know.  

I suggest you google for the CEO in the USA and complain that their UK operation don't seem to understand covid and are holding customers in contempt

pmlist

Thanks for the guidance. I will make that the main part of my appeal with other supplementary points too taken from other templates.

Coupon-mad

Yes you are on the right track.  Ignore MET, if you lose at POPLA of course.  No-one pays.  

 

AND PLEASE DO THIS TO CHANGE THE WAY THE PARKING INDUSTRY WORK:

CALLING ALL NEWBIES!   An urgent task – deadline approaching in about ten days:

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out. 

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework intended to rein in the rogue parking firms. 

Does it go far enough?  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation (two separate consultation documents).

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

BSI PAS 232 – COMMENTING ON THE CODE OF PRACTICE AS DRAFTED:

1.    You will need to register then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  

 

2.    Register, log into the BSI page, and download & read the cover letter here:

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

 

3.    Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions... if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list. 

 

4.    Download the PAS itself and start commenting on what you wish to say something about.  Quick links to each section appear on the left of your page. 

 

You don’t have to comment on everything, e.g. you might want to skip the definitions and focus on later sections, and certainly look at the Annex tables at the end that show things like consideration & grace periods and exemptions.

 

5.    Submit comments when you are happy with them. Don’t just ‘SAVE’ and forget!

 

THAT IS HALF THE JOB DONE!

THE MHCLG CONSULTATION IS EASIER AS IT IS JUST A LIST OF QUESTIONS. 

 

6.    You can do it first if preferred or pushed for time:

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=EGg0v32c3kOociSi7zmVqAVPfAOtwRxLhHRwQ610oElUMzhQSVo0WUQ4SERVSEZaUU9DTUhFQ1VMUy4u

If your answers exceed 4000 characters (approx. 500 words to a single question or 16000 words (approx. 2500 words) for all the questions below, you can email your answers to parking@communities.gov.uk as long as you state who you are.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU WILL SEE, FOR RESPONSES TO THE FRAMEWORK:

 

Q1 Do you agree or disagree that members of APAs should be required to use a single appeals service appointed by the Secretary of State?

Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree

 

Q1.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q2 Please provide any other feedback on the determination of appeals, including the funding model and features that an appeal service should offer e.g. telephone or in-person hearings, the ability to submit evidence online

(free text)

 

Q3 Please provide any comments you have on the proposal to enforce the Code by combining the ATA’s existing audit procedures with additional safeguards.

(free text)

 

Q4 Please outline any alternative means by which the Code could be monitored and enforced. You may wish to cite evidence from other regulatory frameworks which are relevant.

(free text)

 

Q5 Please provide any feedback you have on the proposed governance arrangements for monitoring the new Code of Practice

(free text)

 

Q6 Which parking charge system is most appropriate for private parking?

 a) the Three-tiered system

 b) Mirroring the Local Authority system

(free text)

 

 Q6.1 Please explain your answer. You may, for example, wish to make reference to other deterrent frameworks (for example, for railway tickets or traffic violations)

(free text)

 

 

Q7 What level of discount is appropriate:

40% as is currently offered in private parking and suggested in the three-tiered system, or

50% as is offered in Local Authority parking?

a) 40%

b) 50%

 

Q7.1 Please explain your answer, including whether the discount should be set at a different level

(free text)

 

 

 Q8 How should the level of parking charges be set and how should the levels be revised in future?

(free text)

 

 

Q9 Do you agree or disagree in principle with the idea of the Appeals Charter?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q9.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q10 Do you agree or not that the examples given in the Appeals Charter are fair and appropriate? Agree/Disagree

 

Q10.1 Please explain your answer.

You may wish, for example, to suggest additional cases to be covered in an Appeals Charter or query existing examples.

(free text)

 

Q11 Do you agree or disagree that the parking industry should contribute towards the cost of the regulation?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q11.1 Please explain your answer.

(free text)

 

YOU CAN INSTEAD GIVE MORE CONCISE ANSWERS ONLINE, USING THE MHCLG PAGE LINK.

Don’t forget that answering these questions is the easier bit…

Looking at the BSI PAS (the draft code of practice itself) involves logging in and submitting comments again, and again and again and takes more time!

 

pmlist

Hi, quick update. I have just received an update on the POPLA website regarding "Operator Information and Evidence" submitted by MET Parking Services. I now have 7 days to make comments. The MET Parking Services summary is as below:

In his appeal to POPLA Mr XX raises the following grounds of appeal: • No evidence of allowances for delays relating to COVID-19 or a 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 photographs do not correspond to the time parked The terms and conditions of use of this car park include that there is a maximum permitted stay in the car park of 90 minutes, therefore it is totally reasonable that the motorist, having stopped the vehicle and read the signs, should anticipate that the duration they are permitted to remain in the car park is a maximum of 90 minutes, which by definition is the time from the point of entry to the point of exit. Mr XX has acknowledged that the driver exceeded the maximum permitted stay by 13 minutes, which is in excess of the grace period provided at this site. • 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. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be found at https://. • The signs are not clear or legible We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations. 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 appellant 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.

There is a supporting document which goes into more detail, but it might be too long to post in its entirety.

I would welcome any advice re the best comments to make, but there are a few I am considering:

1) In the detailed document they say "On XX September vehicle XXXXXX was recorded entering the car park and registering

a stay of 203 minutes, 13 minutes longer than the 90-minute maximum permitted stay." This is factually incorrect - based on their photographs it was 103 minutes, not 203.

2) They refer to a 10 minute grace period at the end of the stay, but a) it seems to be a standard thing and in no way relates to Covid, i.e. it has not been increased to allow for the delays, and b) it is only at the end, nothing at the beginning for the extra time taken to get into the restaurant to to CV19 related activities, e.g. scanning codes, App's etc.

3) Taking into account the standard 10 minute grace period, the driver was 3 minutes over the time entering and exiting the car park, i.e. not even the vehicle coming to a stop and the passengers alighting. A £100 fine for being 3 minutes over seems pretty disproportionate!!

4) Regarding Registered Keeper and Driver, they state "We have given a notice to the keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act, this notice:....., then point f. says "Warns the keeper that if we after the specified time the charges are not paid in full and we still do not know the name and address of the driver we may (subject to having met all the criteria) have the right to recover the outstanding sums from the registered keeper;". Does the "..may" mean they can pursue the registered keeper if they want to?

5) In the 'Letter of Authority" section they say "MET is authorised to issue a Parking Notice requiring payment of a Parking Charge in respect of vehicles which are parked in contravention of McDonalds Parking Policy (as detailed in the Contract and being a contractually agreed sum that the customer has agreed to pay in accordance with the terms and conditions of the parking notified on the signage)." a) They have not provided the contract itself, so I can see no reference to the 90 minute period for this specific establishment, and b) did the driver formally enter a contract, and therefore is a 'contractually agreed sum' appropriate? These might not be good points to make but they stood out to me.

I have also emailed the CEO of McDonalds in the US re how loyal customers are being dealt with in the UK, i.e. no apparent sensitivity due to Covid related issues. It will be interesting to see if I get an reply.

If it is useful for me to provide the specific wording of my initial appeal and/or the detailed documents they have provided I am happy to do so, word count permitting.

Again thanks in advance for any pointers re how best to respond. 

Redx

briefly is the answer

you only have 2000 characters

Coupon-mad

3) Taking into account the standard 10 minute grace period, the driver was 3 minutes over the time entering and exiting the car park, i.e. not even the vehicle coming to a stop and the passengers alighting. A £100 fine for being 3 minutes over seems pretty disproportionate!!

Nonono.