McDonalds Gatwick MET Parking Charge - am I doing this right please guys and girls?

Coupon-mad

Just use his wording.  They know their NTK is non-POFA worded. You can spot it at forty paces and they certainly know.

Edtough

If they are so aware, why don't they rectify it?

Coupon-mad

Because:

1.  It's an Airport. PPCs can't use a law that doesn't apply on Airport land (POFA doesn't);

and

2.  it's easier not to have to comply with strict (very tight) POFA deadlines. Plenty of PPCs actively choose the easy 'no rules' NTK route even on land where POFA would apply.

They can choose to issue 'non-POFA' NTKs (even months later, with pretty much any old wording) and it's a huge money-spinner, because most people don't come here like you did.

Most cases will see victims start blabbing about who was driving.  What do think happens then at POPLA? That's right... the 100% win the keeper had has been binned by the time the case might get to POPLA.

And only 1% bother.

Lots of clueless victims pay. Lots of people actually think this is a fine.

Edtough

Ah I see. Shows how ignorant your average person is. So glad I made the effort to look this up. I'll keep this thread updated with how I get on.

Edtough

So I appealed with: "This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw."

And they have replied with:

Site: (128) McDonald's Gatwick
Issue date: 18/04/2024 POPLA
Verification Code: 

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

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 60 minutes. Your vehicle remained on site for longer than the maximum permitted stay therefore we believe the charge 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.

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 at the prevailing price of £60.00 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 resolution agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.

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: 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 do you think of this? They haven't acknowledgement or argued my grounds for appeal.

Coupon-mad

That's just a normal PPC rejection.  You know what to do next, and how to do it because the NEWBIES thread tells you.

Edtough

Yep, watch this space.

Edtough

Ok here's my attempt. Grateful for any advice:

Dear POPLA,

On the 15th April 2024, MET Parking Services issued a parking charge to me (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1.The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2f, and is therefore not POFA compliant.

2.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

Please see below for details

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to not giving the warning required under schedule 4 paragraph 9 sub-paragraph 2f.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2f) of the POFA, the notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

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 stated in paragraph 9. MET Parking Services have failed to fulfil these conditions in the NTK issued.

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have MET Parking Services provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

3) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’, but they have written to me (dated 2nd May 2024) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA Verification Code  .

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

Coupon-mad

You also need the 'unclear signage' and 'no landowner authority' standard points linked in the third post of the NEWBIES thread.

Edtough

Take 2:

Dear POPLA,

On the 15th April 2024, MET Parking Services issued a parking charge to me (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1.The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2f, and is therefore not POFA compliant.

2.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

4.Unclear signage

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

Please see below for details

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to not giving the warning required under schedule 4 paragraph 9 sub-paragraph 2f.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2f) of the POFA, the notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

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 stated in paragraph 9. MET Parking Services have failed to fulfil these conditions in the NTK issued.

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have MET PArking Services provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

3) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

4) I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event.

I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. 

As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

5) As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

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

I have contested points 1 and 2 with MET Parking Services with regards to their PCN reference , but they have written to me (dated 2nd May 2024) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA Verification Code  .

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME