McDonalds (MET) PCN - Manager refused to take any action

Scrapit

beamerguy said:

Terrible customer service, they can cancel easily.

McDonalds, the providers of junk food  which they must eat themselves to provide such a junk letter.   Go to the press in the area of this place so people can be warned that McDonalds hate their customers ......... that's what they are saying.

There is a fully functional McDonald's in the head office so its quite likely.

deejbk01

I send the blue template appeal to MetParking, here is their reply:

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXXXXXXX (Vehicle: XXXXXXXXX)

Site: (132) McDonald's Thornton Heath

Issue date: 09/12/2020

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXXX

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge notice.

The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These include that parking is for customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum permitted stay in this area of 90 minutes. Your vehicle remained on site for longer than the maximum permitted stay therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.

We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions.

We note your comments and attach a copy of the sign and all photographs of the vehicle. These images may also be viewed at www.paymetparking.com.

This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:

1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge notice at the prevailing price of £100.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt recovery agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: XXXXXX Please note that POPLA will consider the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action.

What now, POPLA?

Half_way

deejbk01 said:

Latest reply from McDonalds:

Thank you for getting back in touch further following the parking ticket you received during a visit to one of our restaurants.  I can confirm that as Senior Customer Services Manager for McDonald's in the UK & Ireland, your email was passed directly to myself from Jason to respond to.

I regret that when a parking contravention has occurred, we are unable to deal with any specifics or cases on an individual basis. As mentioned, if a customer contravenes the clearly displayed parking regulations, they will receive a ticket.

I have once again reviewed all the information produced, but whilst I do appreciate your further comments, our position on this matter has not changed. I can therefore only refer you back to our previous email.

If you have not already appealed to the parking company, this would be an advisable step to take first. As a further action after this point, POPLA are an independent body who rule on such matters. They can be contacted via www.popla.co.uk

Thank you for contacting us again and I am sorry that we can be of no further assistance on this matter.

Draft reply:

To Whom It May Concern,

Please can you explain why you have CHOSEN not to contact MET Parking on my behalf to request cancellation of this Notice? We both know that it is simply untrue to say that "we are unable to deal with any specifics or cases on an individual basis". This case is being discussed on Martin Lewis' MSE forum where it well established that McDonalds can and have cancelled these PCNs with just one email. You DO have the capability to email MET Parking to request cancellation, so why are you CHOOSING not to exercise it?

I find it extremely shocking that McDonalds are happy for paying customers to be charged £100 for eating at their restaurant. If this is not resolved I feel compelled to contact national press about this, as I feel it is my duty as a citizen to ensure that more people become aware that McDonalds are treating paying customers with such contempt.

Please see below the link to the forum where is case is being discussed: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6225369/mcdonalds-met-pcn-manager-refused-to-take-any-action

Any thoughts?

Thoughts, i would question their statement that POPLA is independent POPLA is funded by a private members trade association, the British Parking Association limited, the BPA ltd is not a regulatory body, and writes its own rules, known as a code of practice to suit its members (such as Met parking)

You could also add that you can nto understand why Mc Doanlds are reluctant to intervene in this matter, as you are having to spend a considerable amount of time on this as a direct result of Mc Donlad's failiure to act and come to a reasonable conclusion over this matter.

 Say your time is precious to you and you will be looking to claim upto £19 per hour or part there of in which you have spent on this from Mc Donalds / The mc Doanlds franchise , for which you will be willing not to pursue as a gesture of goodwill if the parking charge is cancelled with immediate effect.

KeithP

Yes PoPLA now. Third post of the NEWBIES thread describes how to create and file a winning PoPLA appeal.

Edit your post above to remove your PoPLA code - unless you are happy for someone else, who may not have the same objective as you, to appeal for you.

deejbk01

Hey,

I believe I have a "golden ticket" as the driver has not been declared, and the PCN does not appear to make any reference to POFA 2021.

Here is my POPLA appeal:

Dear POPLA,

On the 06.12.20, Met Parking Services Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the operator or the landowner
3) Met Parking Services Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
4) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver


1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
• The NTK was not not served within the required 14 days to transfer keeper liability
• The NTK fails to identify the facts that caused a parking charge to arise

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met as outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Met Parking Services Ltd. have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK, as outlined within paragraph 9. Specifically, they have failed to include the mandatory timeline and wording:
The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) 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.

This appeal would like to specifically highlight subsection (b) as the received NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9 (5) defines a relevant period as “..the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent appellant arrived 15 days after the alleged event. Therefore, this serves to highlight that Met Parking Services Ltd. have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply. As a result, the appellant is not liable for any charges, as the Notice to Keeper has not been properly ‘given’ under the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012.

To offer further context to this point, Met Parking Services Ltd. has also omitted the following wording from paragraph 7 (2), of schedule 4, of POFA 2012:
’The notice must –
(a) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose…and the other facts that made those charges payable…

Upon receiving the Notice to Keeper it lacked any description detailing the parking charges owed from the alleged extended stay and failed to identify the ‘creditor’ to whom payment was being made. Specifically stating that ‘’either’’ there was not appropriate parking time purchased ‘’or’’ the vehicle remained longer than permitted, neither of which is a ‘fact’. The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.


2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner

The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident.

In this case Met Parking Services Ltd. has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 penalty charge was arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. Given that Met Parking Services Ltd. charge the same fixed charge to any alleged breach of contract (whether serious/damaging, or trifling in this case), and that the claimed £100, with 40% discount for prompt payment, is the maximum penalty allowed without prior justification to the BPA (section 19.5 & 19.6, BPA Code of Practice), it is clear that there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that Met Parking Services Ltd is exploiting section 19 of the BPA code of practice.
Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:
19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract

Based on the information offered it would suggest that the figure being demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate loss earning due to the fact that operational costs, such as the installing and the maintenance of equipment should not be included.

3) Met Parking Services Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that Met Parking Services Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Met Parking Services Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

4) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:
18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.

Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Met Parking Services Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. When the driver arrived at the car park it was in the hours of dusk and therefore impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible.

As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on the majority of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.”

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

Based on these points, it is believed that Met Parking Services Ltd. are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions, driver safety and ensuring the appropriate illumination of signs. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that Met Parking Services Ltd. be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighboring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

Redx

Get rid of number 2

That argument died with the Beavis case in 2015 , so over 5 years ago

The correct categories will include all or most of the following

POFA 2012
The BPA CoP 2020 , January edition
Clause 13 from the above , grace periods

No landowner authority

Poor and inadequate signage

The CRA 2015

Umkomaas

Give POPLA the actual dates in order to justify your claim that MET have failed to meet the requirements of PoFA. They need spoon-feeding this sort of information as they struggle with those dates. Give us the dates so we can check those out for you (apologies if you've already given them to us - I've not read back through the entire thread). 

Ditch 2) in its entirety, the Supreme Court put paid to that over 5 years ago. It will not help you.  Landowner/PPC loss is now irrelevant. 

Coupon-mad

Yep, replace your five or six year out of date argument in #2, with the template POPLA point from the NEWBIES thread about the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable.  It's designed to come right underneath a first point about a non-POFA NTK, so it will work well in your appeal.

I haven't read every word of your draft and I doubt others have either, due to time constraints and 'real life' for us volunteers here, but do check that you are at no point adding any words of your own that imply or suggest that the registered keeper was the driver/parked, or was in the car, or 'returned' to look at the signage, etc.

Le_Kirk

Don't have links in POPLA appeals, you are giving POPLA assessors an opportunity to ignore part of your appeal; they won't go chasing your links all over t'Internet.  Embed the item within the body of text.

deejbk01

Umkomaas said:

Give POPLA the actual dates in order to justify your claim that MET have failed to meet the requirements of PoFA. They need spoon-feeding this sort of information as they struggle with those dates. Give us the dates so we can check those out for you (apologies if you've already given them to us - I've not read back through the entire thread). 

Ditch 2) in its entirety, the Supreme Court put paid to that over 5 years ago. It will not help you.  Landowner/PPC loss is now irrelevant. 

Which dates?
On the PCN
the date of contravention is 6th December 2020
Date of issue is 9th december 2020