Leaving Site PCN Mcdonalds - Missed Appeal

AK01

Hi all 

After lurking on the forum for some time and reading the newbies thread,im hoping to get some guidance as to what to do next. Ive read many many threads in relation to situations similar to mine but im starting to wonder what the best course of action is here. Please feel free to point out any information i should omit on this post for obvious reasons.

I received a ‘occupants leaving site’ pcn on the McDonalds site with alleged cctv evidence from MET parking. I wont disclose which branch just yet or whether occupants left or not. Of its the usual £100 charge - £60 within 14 days. An obscene amount for the possibility of any occupants leaving site, however if this was the case - said occupants were a customer of the branch.

Unfortunately i listened to outdated advice of ignoring it (partly due to poor timing as id had other unexpected financial hits). In hindsight i really should have contested it but combined with the lack of evidence (just a photo of the car parked) and the fact it was issued over a month of the alleged contravention i thought i really was dealing with a cowboy outfit and it would just go away - it hasnt. If only i had found the forum sooner.

I am now at the stage of the Debt Collector clowns hounding with me with letters. Where the advice here is to ignore them and not engage in any contact i thought i really need to start fighting my own corner incase there is court action. I had already complained to the Mcdonalds branch in person but they claimed they are not responsible for the car park as they dont own it. Discovering that this is false, i wrote a letter of complaint to the branch and copied in the CEO and the head of southern operations. I very quickly received a reply which ill post below. Long story short, they were absolutely no help. I complained on the basis that, like others on here, there is insufficient evidence along with vague signage that emphasises a 90 minute stay but not staying within the site unless you read the small print on the signs located in the far corners of the car park. And also there is evidence of payment at the store at that time. Following that negative reviews have been left on their google and tripadvisor pages just to warn others more than anything. 

As i have missed the appeal deadline and now have confirmation that the store will not cancel.; aside from complaining to the local MP and encourage them to intervene i fear that i am running out of options aside from sticking it out and waiting for the possible court letter. Begrudgingly at this stage id happily pay £100 just to make this go away but i do think this is worth fighting for what its worth - its just causing a lot of undue stress. I cannot go through POPLA as i am now unable to get a code through appeal. I think my only other option is to post a letter to MET with the blue letter template from the newbies thread and call their bluff - as i cant contact them through my PCN code as it doesn’t work (possibly expired) or go through to IAS once I’ve complained. 

However if i do this am I potentially stirring the pot or is it better just to sit tight.

AK01

Here is my complaint letter in full to McDonalds and their reply just for reference. 

————

Dear Store owner/Manager

I am writing to you in relation to the above parking charge issued to my address by MET parking with the parking charge date of xxxxxx as the keeper of the vehicle registered xxxxxx, and would like to make a formal complaint regarding the fine that I have received from the contracted agents by McDonald’s. The fine received is for a total of £100 with the reason of 'The vehicle was left in the car park while occupants left the mcdonalds site'.

The occupant/s were a legitimate customer with supporting evidence of payment on the day. The parking charge notice stated that ‘the occupants’ had left the site whilst my vehicle remained parked in the McDonald’s car park. I believe the driver is not in breach of this contravention for the following reasons:

The signage was not clear enough to show that you are not allowed to leave the site; the only clear restriction shown is the maximum stay of 90 minutes, with signage installed in the far corners of the site and facing away from the entrance, not towards the motorists entering. The driver is also not responsible for occupants actions and vice versa whilst on site, which again makes any such contravention on this site unjust and unfair.

There will also be no admissions as to who was driving or any occupants who may have left the site as no assumptions can be drawn - since no clear evidence has been provided by the contracted company.

The fee is also disproportionate, According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations - parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there.

In this case it is free to park for 90 minutes (which was not exceeded) so the charge of £100 you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner.

I have no other choice but to make an official complaint to you, as the actions of the contracted company on your site, MET Parking, are intimidatory, and will drive away customers to the McDonald’s Feltham store in the long run including myself for the foreseeable future until this is resolved. 

As a resolution, I would like to request that you assist me in obtaining a cancellation of this 'ticket' from MET Parking, and that you seriously consider ceasing further business with them. Subsequently in the meantime i will also be lodging a complaint as regards to rogue parking firms such as Met to the local MP

Yours Faithfully

Here is McDonalds customer service reply and their subsequent reply once i complained further.

I am writing further to your email which has been passed for my attention from Alistair Macrow regarding your visit to our Feltham 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 regardless of whether you were in the restaurant for the duration of the stay or not. 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 and if you do wish to pursue the matter, this will need to be done by following the appeals process outlined on the parking ticket.
 
Kind regards,

Second Reply

Thank you for getting back in touch further following the parking ticket you received during a visit to one of our restaurants.
 
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 POPLA.co.uk
 
Thank you for contacting us again and I am sorry that we can be of no further assistance on this matter.
 
Kind regards,

————————

Looks fair to say they wont be getting my custom again (not that it counts for much). They are keeping a firm stance on this one. 

Coupon-mad

Ignore MET.  No paying!

Nothing will happen except debt demands.  If I'm wrong and MET break the habit of a lifetime, you'd win. Come back if you get a solicitor's LBC.

And we sincerely hope that you are au fait with the need to respond to the final Government Public Consultation?

We all need to ram the nail in the coffin of the false £70 'DRA fee' add-on, that actually funds the court claim and toxic CCJ culture, as well as the DRA and roboclaim 'legals' gaslighting of people.

Please come back here when it opens, and you can make sure you don't miss the Public Consultation:

If you are not a regular reader, to be alerted you'll need to bookmark the thread by MSE_JC at the top of the forum and enable (on your profile) email alerts for bookmarked threads.

Then join us when the Consultation opens in a few weeks.

fisherjim

Signage? What Signage?

B789

I have an idea for making a shedload of moolah... I'm going to set up a PPC, register with one of the double-dealing AOSs, find a local car park and get a contract set up, then install an ANPR/CCTV system.

I will issue PCNs to anyone observed either leaving the car park or touching their face with a finger, picking their nose or scratching their head.

I will cover my backside with a set of Ts & Cs that, although obvious by their prominence, are actually not quite facing the correct way or only located in the corners of the car park. I am sure that 99.9% of users wont bother to actually read them and well over 50% of those receiving the PCNs will just poop their pants and pay the "discount" fee. Sod POFA.

Ka-ching! 

Le_Kirk

Sorry, you have been beaten to it by all (most of) the PPCs already in existence!

B789

Le_Kirk said:

Sorry, you have been beaten to it by all (most of) the PPCs already in existence!

Whilst it is a tongue-in-cheek post, I was attempting to highlight the "leaving the premises" allegation and attempting to invoice someone for that. Why limit it to "leaving the premises" when you could try and charge anyone for something even sillier such as, for example, "nose picking"?

Le_Kirk

My reply was in the same manner as yours but I couldn't find the tongue-in-cheek smiley!

B789

Plenty to choose from here: https://tenor.com/en-GB/search/tongue-in-cheek-emoticon-gifs

AK01

Coupon-mad said:

Ignore MET.  No paying!

Nothing will happen except debt demands.  If I'm wrong and MET break the habit of a lifetime, you'd win. Come back if you get a solicitor's LBC.

And we sincerely hope that you are au fait with the need to respond to the final Government Public Consultation?

We all need to ram the nail in the coffin of the false £70 'DRA fee' add-on, that actually funds the court claim and toxic CCJ culture, as well as the DRA and roboclaim 'legals' gaslighting of people.

Please come back here when it opens, and you can make sure you don't miss the Public Consultation:

If you are not a regular reader, to be alerted you'll need to bookmark the thread by MSE_JC at the top of the forum and enable (on your profile) email alerts for bookmarked threads.

Then join us when the Consultation opens in a few weeks.

Thanks Coupon. I have bookmarked and will be following, I am in total shock as to what these fraudsters are allowed to get away with in this day and age. As per posts below, I had no idea you could be fined for something so ridiculous - Max stay charges I semi understand but the excessive charges still aren't justified.

In terms of MET, I am a tad anxious knowing that these parking parking firms are allowed to go back through charges up to 6 years and still claim through court. So im hoping to crush the PCN so I do not have wait knowing there may/may not be the dreaded LBC letter in the future. I heard that many more now take to court compared to in the past.

Is POPLA ever a option If an appeal is missed or can I forget it now. Would it also be a good idea to request SAR - or again is this stirring the pot.

B789 said:

I have an idea for making a shedload of moolah... I'm going to set up a PPC, register with one of the double-dealing AOSs, find a local car park and get a contract set up, then install an ANPR/CCTV system.

I will issue PCNs to anyone observed either leaving the car park or touching their face with a finger, picking their nose or scratching their head.

I will cover my backside with a set of Ts & Cs that, although obvious by their prominence, are actually not quite facing the correct way or only located in the corners of the car park. I am sure that 99.9% of users wont bother to actually read them and well over 50% of those receiving the PCNs will just poop their pants and pay the "discount" fee. Sod POFA.

Ka-ching! 

Absolutely! I had this exact same thought recently. Motorists in this country face enough pressure and are hammered with enough fines, restrictions, taxes so it just seems natural that these companies are allowed to operate the way they are. On top of that it feels like every week another road around my area has introduced ANPR for travelling down residential roads at certain times...you literally cannot move anymore. So being fined for 'nose picking' on site doesn't sound that farfetched! 

AK01

fisherjim said:

Signage? What Signage?

More the reason as to why im annoyed with myself for not appealing. I presume if I can get through to POPLA or IAS these are good grounds to complain. Again occupants is such a broad term, if a passenger runs across the road and run back just for fun is that honestly good grounds to issue a 'fine'!?