MET Parking McDonalds Heathrow Hayes Overstay 2023

Empathic2023

Hello, I'm fighting a NTK from MET Parking that was issued for an 11 minute overstay (over 60 mins) at McDonalds Heathrow Hayes.

As per the advise in this forum, I put in an initial pithy appeal directly to MET Parking as it was unlikely to be accepted, although I did include proof of custom at the establishment but they didn't care nor did the branch manager. I haven't admitted who was driving at any point so I'm still working within keeper liability.

I made a best effort at an appeal to POPLA and MET Parking have now responded to the appeal. They've managed to provide a "proof of landowner authority", although from what I've read there's probably doubt over the "contract".

Here's what MET Parking said in response to the appeal:

Operator Name: MET Parking Services - EW

Operator Case Summary: In the appeal to POPLA M... raises the following grounds for appeal: • He was not the driver of the vehicle and there is no keeper liability We are confident that we have complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. • 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 http-s://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf. • No evidence of the period parked The period of time the vehicle spent on site is stated on the Notice to Keeper which can be found in section B. The relevant sections have been outlined in red. The terms and conditions of use of this car park include that there is a maximum permitted stay in the car park of 60 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 on site is a maximum of 60 minutes, which by definition is the time from the point of entry to the point of exit.   • 11 minutes is a reasonable grace period, so no overstay occurred 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 and given the size and nature of the site we believe that the 10-minute grace period is sufficient. The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that parking is for McDonald’s customers only and there is a maximum permitted stay of 60 minutes. Please note that these terms and conditions apply to all users of the car park, which naturally includes customers of the restaurant. As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In light of this we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

I've redacted and uploaded both my appeal document and the appeal case summary MET Parking provided (conveniently including the original appeal and original NTK) to my Dropbox (this is a new account so I cannot post the actual links so you'll need to remove the dash in https):
http-s://www.dropbox.com/s/b9rdk6dfsnvozby/MET%20Parking%20Appeal%20Redacted.pdf?dl=0
http-s://www.dropbox.com/s/dptn4x2kiedctrv/MET%20Parking%20138%2BMcD%2BHeathrow%20case%20summary.pdf?dl=0

I now have to fill in the 10000 character comments box in the POPLA appeal. I'd really appreciate any help figuring out if I've done everything safely and by the book and figuring out what to put in the comment box to best make the case for dismissal.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help.

fisherjim

Your links made live:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b9rdk6dfsnvozby/MET Parking Appeal Redacted.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dptn4x2kiedctrv/MET Parking 138+McD+Heathrow case summary.pdf?dl=0

Just a couple of points in their evidence to challenge

1 The signage examples are quite obviously office masters and are not evidence they are replicated on site at the specified time

2 The photos claiming to show "Some of the signage around the site" are not dated so could be anytime in the past, or unless you know every inch of the car park it might be somewhere else.

3 The Orientation photos are dated 2020 so are not admissible evidence to the parking event they could all be gone now.

4 The site plan is just an office site plan, from when no one knows, and is just supposition again it also shows no actual evidence of existing signage.

You should also bypass the idiot duty manager and write to MCD's UK CEO.

Their explanation of 10/11 minutes grace period is contradictory and ridiculous as if they don't understand anything.

Empathic2023

Not necessarily looking for any advise at this point, just adding an update for anybody else affected by MET Parking, the POPLA appeal was Unsuccessful.

Assessor Name: Gregory McGlynn

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the stay authorised.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:
• They were not the driver; the parking operator can’t pursue the keeper unless the Notice to Keeper is The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Compliant.
• No evidence of Landowner authority.
• No evidence of the period parked.
• The grace period has not been applied correctly. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments and raised new grounds of appeal regrading signage. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the parking operator has provided a valid redacted contract showing they have authority to issue PCNs on the land. The signage on the site states that there is a 1 hour max stay time. The operator uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the site to record how long each vehicle stays on the site for. As the ANPR images provided by the operator shows the appellants vehicle remained on the site for 1 hour 11 minutes, the parking operator issued a PCN as an overstay of 11 minutes has occurred. The images contained with the PCN are images taken by the ANPR cameras of the appellant vehicle entering and exiting the site. These are then used to calculate the length of time the vehicle has been within the boundaries of the car park. Whilst I acknowledge there are no images of the appellants vehicle parked on the car park, there is no requirement for an operator to provide these, as the ANPR images clearly show the vehicle was on site for 1 hour and 11 minutes 19 seconds. It is important to note that a parking event starts from the moment a driver’s vehicle enters the car park to the moment they leave. Even if the driver is still in the vehicle with the engine switched on, or not parked within a bay this is considered to be gaining utility from the site. Section 13.3 of the Code of Practice requires parking operators to allow the driver 10 minutes to leave if parking is permitted for a limited amount of time or on paid car parks. If a 10 minute grace period is applied the appellant has still overstayed by 1 minute 19 seconds. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these as part of my decision. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver overstayed the max stay time by 11 minutes 19 seconds and therefore they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

For context, my POPLA appeal response:

“The period of time the vehicle spent on site is stated on the Notice to Keeper” is time the vehicle was on site, not a time spent parked, which is what MET parking are being asked to and required to prove.
The operator repeatedly makes references to and asserts in their case statement that “the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay” but they are not enabled to enforce limits on stays, only on parking itself.
There is no photographic and timestamped evidence whatsoever of the vehicle parked.
The signage examples are quite obviously office masters and are not evidence they are replicated on site at the specified time.
The Orientation photos are dated 2020 so are not admissible evidence to the parking event, they could all be gone now.
The site plan is just an office site plan, from when no one knows, and is just supposition again it also shows no actual evidence of existing signage.
By simply providing small excerpts of a generic contract between Met Parking and McDonalds Restaurants Limited and table from an annex from some document, there is not adequate evidence this site is actively and currently managed by Met Parking, for example through variation or termination. It is also apparent that different sites have different terms, it seems that McDonalds sites managed by Met Parking are under 90 minute terms while this site is atypically 60 minutes.

I'll put this in the appeal parts in the POPLA decisions thread.

Looks like the assessor copied and pasted the operators (what I believe is) mis-interpretation of my appeal. I didn't believe I added any additional grounds for appeal, but whatever they say. As per advice given above, I'll write to McD's UK CEO.

B789

You got the tea boy assessing your appeal. Move on and ignore the decision. It has no bearing on any future claim, should t come to that. For now, just ignore the wave of useless debt crawler letters and come back if/when you receive an LoC or a claim. A review of the second post in the Newbies/FAQ thread would't do you any harm.

Coupon-mad

Compare and contrast:

POPLA (BPA-funded) spoon-fed twaddle:

"It is important to note that a parking event starts from the moment a driver’s vehicle enters the car park to the moment they leave."

versus 

The Government's Statutory CoP:

2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.