MET Parking - Notice To keeper

carparkMETscammers

Can anyone advise on the following parking charge?

90 min max stay and I stayed 2hrs - 120mins (to the second- amazingly).
"McDonalds Farnborough Tumble !!!!!!" which I did purchase a meal inside but I got caught on work calls. Unfortunately, I did not complain to McDonalds to try and get this charge revoked (I know I should have done this first)  and appealed directly to MET Parking directly using the standard template:

"Dear MET parking services team, I am the keeper of vehicle "xxxxx" and have received your Parking Charge Notice ABxxxxxxx.

I note that the statements required by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are not present in this letter and I, as the keeper, can therefore not be held liable for the actions of the driver at the time. I have, as requested, passed on this notice to the driver but as there is no legal requirement to identify the driver I will not be doing so. I will rely on the driver to contact you separately.

I do not expect to hear from you again on this matter other than to confirm that no further action will be taken against me.."

MET Parking have responded and again asked for the drivers details which I did not respond to and I then received the following:

". 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: 3863304042 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."

So my question is do I appeal to POPLA with the details that I did eat and stay longer than 90mins (which I did and the only way I could prove this is via a bank statement) or do I carry on with not providing any details of the driver and the standard POPLA template on this forum?

Thanks in advanced.

Gr1pr

Definitely not that wording 

Popla will find that the driver breached the parking contract if you admit the details 

Your Popla appeal should be based on legal arguments, not excuses or mitigation, they cannot uphold that type of appeal 

There is no Popla template on this forum 

If you do appeal it should be based on the following. ( Where applicable. )


No landowner authority 
Poor and inadequate signage 
No keeper liability, where applicable 
POFA 2012 where applicable 
The BPA CoP , where applicable 

Etc

Plan A in the newbies sticky thread in announcements is your best option here 

Coupon-mad

carparkMETscammers said:

Can anyone advise on the following parking charge?

90 min max stay and I stayed 2hrs - 120mins (to the second- amazingly).
"McDonalds Farnborough Tumble !!!!!!" which I did purchase a meal inside but I got caught on work calls. Unfortunately, I did not complain to McDonalds to try and get this charge revoked (I know I should have done this first)  and appealed directly to MET Parking directly using the standard template:

"Dear MET parking services team, I am the keeper of vehicle "xxxxx" and have received your Parking Charge Notice ABxxxxxxx.

I note that the statements required by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are not present in this letter and I, as the keeper, can therefore not be held liable for the actions of the driver at the time. I have, as requested, passed on this notice to the driver but as there is no legal requirement to identify the driver I will not be doing so. I will rely on the driver to contact you separately.

I do not expect to hear from you again on this matter other than to confirm that no further action will be taken against me.."

MET Parking have responded and again asked for the drivers details which I did not respond to and I then received the following:

". 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: 3863304042 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."

So my question is do I appeal to POPLA with the details that I did eat and stay longer than 90mins (which I did and the only way I could prove this is via a bank statement) .

NO. Why do that? You'd be throwing away your winning position if it's a non-PoFA NTK!

You literally need one paragraph if it's not a POFA NTK.

carparkMETscammers

Thanks Gr1pr & Coupon Mad, so I have not yet engaged with POPLA as yet, only MET Parking, but I believe from both your comments I should formulate a response based on not providing any details of the driver and find the most suitable POPLA template including the following topics:
No landowner authority 
Poor and inadequate signage 
No keeper liability, where applicable 
POFA 2012 where applicable 
The BPA CoP , where applicable 

Please let me know if any different....I will try and look for anything in announcements and elsewhere that best gives me all the info....
many thanks, Henry.

carparkMETscammers

Hi Guys, I have appealed to POPLA and MET parking have responded to my appeal and of course state that my appeal should be refused as below. I have 7 days to add any comments and I am not sure if I can add to my case for a 30mins overstay at MacDonalds car park....They have supplied a lot of information on all my points including all the signage and photos. Any further advice would be appreciated.

In the appeal to POPLA Mr ****** raises the following grounds for appeal: • PoFA non-compliance, 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. • Not a reasonable charge, no loss suffered We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis. This ruling revolved around a charge of similar size and nature and the judges ruled that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable. • 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 again 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. • Payment requirement timescale There is no requirement that we provided a period of 28 days for payment from the date of receipt of the letter. • Data request The only images we hold for this vehicle are included in section E of this evidence pack. A copy of our privacy notice may be seen at www.metparking.com/privacynotice or can be heard by calling 0207 118 3080. It is also available by emailing DPO@metparking.com. We will disclose data where requested by regulatory bodies with the appropriate paperwork, we will also disclose data where charges remain unpaid and payable to those agents, advisers and suppliers who act on our behalf in recovering the money. We do not believe we are required to provide the operational data that has been requested. 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 90 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.
-----
details:
Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site – these terms can be seen on the photograph of the sign attached in Section E• Private property – No unauthorised parking• This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only.• Maximum stay is 90 minutes. No return is permitted within 60 minutes. • Drivers and passengers must remain on the premises while the vehicle remains in the car park• Vehicles parked, stopped or waiting in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times.• Vehicles must park within the marked bays and not park causing obstruction to others.Case SummaryThe parking charge notice was issued for exceeding the maximum permitted stay.This site is managed using ANPR CCTV technology and parking attendants.This car park and restaurant are located alongside other commercial businesses and as a result there is a high volume of vehicles who use the car park while visiting other establishments in the area. Our clients have set a maximum stay in the car park of 90 minutes for customers whilst on the premises only to maximise the number of spaces available for all customers.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 site. The signs measure 600mm x 450mm and all are made using Oralite a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA2. This is the European Harmonised Standard that has been set for Road Traffic Signs. In addition to their reflective nature the signs are illuminated by lampposts they are attached to or adjacent to, ambient light and light from the vehicles themselves entering and parking on the site.On xx/xx/2024 vehicle ******* was recorded as remaining longer than the 90-minute maximum permitted stay.Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA and a Notice to Keeper sent. On xx/xx/2024 we received an appeal from the registered keeper, Mr ****** ******. On completing their investigation our appeals team wrote to the appellant explaining that the appeal had been refused and why.In the appeal to POPLA Mr ****** raises the following grounds for appeal:• PoFA non-compliance, no keeper liabilityWe 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.• Not a reasonable charge, no loss sufferedWe refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis. This ruling revolved around a charge of similar size and nature and the judges ruled that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable.• Landowner authorityWe 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 again 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. • Payment requirement timescaleThere is no requirement that we provided a period of 28 days for payment from the date of receipt of the letter. • Data requestThe only images we hold for this vehicle are included in section E of this evidence pack. A copy of our privacy notice may be seen at www.metparking.com/privacynotice or can be heard by calling 0207 118 3080. It is also available by emailing DPO@metparking.com. We will disclose data where requested by regulatory bodies with the appropriate paperwork, we will also disclose data where charges remain unpaid and payable to those agents, advisers and suppliers who act on our behalf in recovering the money.We do not believe we are required to provide the operational data that has been requested.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 90 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.

Coupon-mad

I expect most regulars won't have time or much inclination or reason to read a standard POPLA evidence pack blurb.  All as expected.

But adding comments is covered in the NEWBIES thread third post already.

And if you lose, you won't be paying, so nothing to worry about either way.

carparkMETscammers

Thanks Coupon-mad