POPLA appeal - MET parking -McDonalds Lakeside(Please help urgently as POPLA window closes today)

Spicygem

Result! Thank you all so much for your help with this! Honestly appreciate you all for the good work you’re doing to help people

“The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.”

Coupon-mad

Very good outcome!  

Natasha_H

Spicygem said:

Hello, hope everyone’s enjoying the lovely sunshine!

 

A few months ago, I received a NTK from MET for overstaying by 27 mins after visiting McDonalds in Lakeside Thurrock. Genuinely didn’t notice the signs, also there was a long waiting time first queuing for drive through, we then changed our mind and went in to eat, afterwards let child play in their soft play area and lost track of time.

 

The manager at McDonalds was unhelpful, and claimed they were renting the land from MET parking therefore they have nothing to do with the parking charges.

 

I’ve already appealed to MET using one of the templates here (didn’t give away driver details, non POFA compliant etc), and as expected they’ve refused and sent Popla code. Just realised that I have to submit the popla appeal by EOD today before the 28 days runs out so urgently require some help reviewing my popla appeal before I click send.

 

Note – I’m pretty sure the MTK is non POFA as it’s exact word for word as the letter here (new user so i'm not allowed to post links yet but please search for the post titled "

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

Am I right in thinking the only reason it’s non POFA complaint in the Gatwick case is because this relates to an airport? 

 

Dear POPLA,

 

On the 31st March 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 on site 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.  Non-Compliant Signage

4. 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,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

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)   Non-Compliant Signage - 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

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''. 

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100, which is illegible in from the driver’s view at the site entrance, and is not visible from any parking spaces - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist. There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case, 2015.

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:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges. 

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 placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, similar in appearance to un-related parking signage, 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.

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 some of the signs).  Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no signs with the full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering, and the full terms displayed on a single sign, - neither at the entrance nor elsewhere, 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 02/06/2016, 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 the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters that are approximately half an inch high.

I put the operator to strict proof as to the size and font of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself, and to prove the location and number of signs required to be read to fully read the full terms of parking.

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

(new user so i'm not allowed to post links yet)

“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.”

“... Letter Visibility Chart shows the maximum reading distance for your sign to make the best impact, as well as the overall readable distance. A good rule of thumb is every 1 inch of letter height provides 10 feet of readability with the best impact. For example, 3” tall letters make the best impact within 30’; however, they can still be seen and read from up to 100’ away”

 “… The font type that you choose can also impact the visibility of your text. Very thin fonts and script fonts can potentially decrease visibility. When choosing fonts, you should select a bold style that is easy to read and with sufficient spacing between letters (kerning).”

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 binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

(new user so i'm not allowed to post links yet)

 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.

 

 

4) 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

Kind regards

 

Hi Spicygem, unfortunately I have the other day received a fine in the post from MET parking services for parking longer than allowed in McDonald's Lakeside retail park, Thurrock. The letter looks different from yours you posted on here. It was a similar situation to you, half term with the kids, McDonald's was very busy etc. I am also registered disabled so was using their disabled space. First time offence. I have had a look for the templates on here to appeal to MET parking services and you say you used a template from here to do that, but I can't find it. Please could you send me that template you used? The fact you were successful with this at POPLA gives me some hope. Thanks so much.

Gr1pr

I would suggest that you study the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum first 

Then study your NTK PCN letter to see if it complies with POFA or not 

Then start your own thread for targeted advice 

Coupon-mad

I have had a look for the templates on here to appeal to MET parking services and you say you used a template from here to do that, but I can't find it. Please could you send me that template you used? The fact you were successful with this at POPLA gives me some hope. Thanks so much.

You can find it. The appeal is where you'd expect: in NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.  No link. See my signature:

Natasha_H

Coupon-mad said:

I have had a look for the templates on here to appeal to MET parking services and you say you used a template from here to do that, but I can't find it. Please could you send me that template you used? The fact you were successful with this at POPLA gives me some hope. Thanks so much.

You can find it. The appeal is where you'd expect: in NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.  No link. See my signature:

Thanks so much. I've read through the newbies thread. I've found the appeal template and would like to use it and submit an appeal to Met Parking Services. I could also send them a snippet of the bank statement which shows the McDonald's purchase on that day only with no personal details and a photo of the disability badge too (only the front of it, so they don't get the personal details on the back of the badge). I am not sure whether to mention if the NTK I received is non-POFA compliant or not and on what grounds too. I did read through Section 9 of the legislation but am unsure. I am a total novice to this and not from any legal background or anything. My redacted NTK is below and although it was issued for parking in the same car park and the NTK was issued for the same reasons too, it is noticeably different to what the OP posted of their redacted NTK at the start of this thread which they received about 6 or so months earlier this year. I don't know if this will help my case or not. But someone did say in this thread that the OP's NTK is definitely non-POFA compliant. The wording on mine is the same so I assume that mine is non-POFA compliant too but I don't know on what grounds. Met Parking Services say on the NTK that the photographic evidence may be viewed at www.paymetparking.com but I looked and it's not there and I couldn't access it either. Maybe I should add that in my appeal too. Any advice would be appreciated before I submit an appeal to them, thank you.

Coupon-mad

Yep that's non-POFA so just replace the bit in the template appeal about pay & display machines, with a sentence stating that the keeper is not liable because the NTK is non-PoFA worded.

If attaching a pic of the Blue Badge do partly redact some info and do not write anything that implies driving.

Gr1pr

Hide your picture and the latter half of the reference number too, no private information or data, no birthday etc

Appeal as keeper only !

Le_Kirk

@Natasha_H, please start your own thread, as you were advised by @Gr1pr. It can become confusing trying to deal with two issues on one thread.

Natasha_H

Le_Kirk said:

@Natasha_H, please start your own thread, as you were advised by @Gr1pr. It can become confusing trying to deal with two issues on one thread.

I will once this progresses. The only reason I posted the last post to this thread with copies of my NTK was also because of how it relates to the OP's NTK, the similarities and their appeal.