MET Parking Services - (Left in MacDonald's car park while occupants left the premises)

Archerzee

Hi everyone,

I hope you are all doing well.

As the title suggests, I received a PCN and followed the process recommended on this forum. I submitted my appeal and eventually the case went to POPLA. Unfortunately, POPLA has now rejected my appeal.

MET Parking Services provided a lot of evidence, including two images that they claim show the driver and passenger leaving the car park briefly to go to Asda and then returning. The whole trip took no more than 20 minutes. It's worth noting that they were genuine customers at McDonald’s, paid through the drive-thru, and provided proof of purchase as evidence. Despite this, the appeal was still rejected.

It seems they used every argument available to them, and I did the same in my appeal. I have honestly never heard of a parking condition where a paying customer must remain on site the entire time while their vehicle is parked. Hopefully Tesco and other retailers don’t start adopting similar rules!

Anyway, POPLA has now issued their decision (unsuccessful). I’m wondering what the next steps are. Should I simply wait for MET Parking to send further letters or debt collection threats and only deal with it if it reaches the court stage? Or is there something else I should be doing at this point?

For context, the driver has not been identified and remains unnamed.

Below is the POPLA decision:

Assessor Supporting Rationale for Decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and whether the driver complied with the terms and conditions for using the car park.

The operator has failed to demonstrate that the registered keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The Notice to Keeper fails to evidence the period of parking. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 allows parking operators to transfer liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules, including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver.

In this case, the PCN includes the necessary information, and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper.

The appellant states that the period of parking was not included on the PCN. However, the PCN clearly states the date of the contravention and the time of 15:41.

The appellant also states that no evidence has been provided to show that the driver breached any terms and conditions, and that the vehicle was parked for the purpose of visiting McDonald’s. While I acknowledge that the appellant claims there is no evidence of a breach and that they were visiting McDonald’s, and I also acknowledge the proof of purchase provided, the operator has submitted CCTV footage from the date in question.

This footage shows the driver and passenger entering the site in vehicle registration XXXXXX, parking, and both leaving the site between 15:23 and 16:04. The warden on site has also provided images showing the vehicle unattended on site between approximately 15:36 and 15:41.

As no sufficient evidence has been provided to the contrary, I am satisfied that a breach occurred. The driver and passenger left the site boundaries, which are clearly identified by signage placed around the car park.

The appellant states that the signage at the site is inadequate. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice that sets the standards its parking operators must comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code states that operators must have entrance signs making it clear that motorists are entering private land.

In this case, the operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is present in an appropriate location and clearly states that terms and conditions apply.

Section 19.3 of the Code states that operators must have signage clearly setting out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the terms are clearly displayed. The signage includes bold text stating that the maximum stay is 90 minutes, that drivers and passengers must remain on the premises while the vehicle remains in the car park, and that any breach will result in a £100 PCN.

The operator has also provided a site map and multiple images showing that signs are placed throughout the site, ensuring that motorists have the opportunity to review them. I am therefore satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice.

The appellant states that the parking charge is not justified and does not reflect any genuine loss. This argument requires consideration of the relevant case law in ParkingEye v Beavis.

The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in the high-profile case of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have the characteristics of a contractual penalty but may still be enforceable where there are legitimate interests in charging motorists who breach parking conditions. The Court concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate and placed importance on the fact that the charge was prominently displayed on signage.

Although that case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, the underlying principles remain applicable.

Taking these principles into account, I will not consider whether the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss or the landowner’s actual loss. Instead, I will consider the amount of the charge and the legibility of the signage.

After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible and that the charge amount is within the region considered acceptable by the Supreme Court.

The appellant also states in their comments that the ParkingEye v Beavis case is distinguishable. However, this case is widely used across the parking industry when motorists challenge the fairness of parking charges or argue that they do not represent a genuine loss.

Regardless of this point, the driver left the site, and therefore this argument does not affect my decision.

Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to locate and review the parking terms, ensure they understand them, and ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the conditions of the site.

Based on the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Archerzee

I forgot to ask one more question related to my current situation. I’m currently in the process of buying a house with a mortgage, and I’m wondering whether this PCN could affect that in any way.

If I continue to challenge it and it eventually goes to court, could this have any impact on my mortgage application? From what I’ve read, a CCJ would only be issued if a court claim was made, the case was lost, and the amount remained unpaid. However, I just want to double-check to make sure, as I wouldn’t want anything to cause delays or complications with my mortgage application.

Le_Kirk

You are quite correct in your summary of the situation above.

Jame4ters

There are a number of other similar “leaving premises” cases on the forum. Have a read of these but don’t pay whatever they are demanding.

Archerzee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81918894#Comment_81918894

I appreciate the feedback. However, I looked into the cases mentioned and they either:

A) Were withdrawn, or
B) Were successful at the POPLA stage.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find any that went further than that (with an unsuccessful POPLA decision), which is why I decided to create this post.

Cheers.

Half_way

ibostson toothnbrush while that may be old its worth a read and could give pointers, was the driver told by the car park attendant when/if leaving site?

Archerzee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81918947#Comment_81918947

Thank you very much for the pointer. I’ve been checking the links, but I can only access the topics you posted in. Unfortunately, any links that were included in those posts appear to be dead now, including the ones I found through Google. Is there any archive source where I could still read them?

They were also quite sneaky in the way this was handled. It almost felt like they were watching and waiting for the occupants to leave the site. The moment they stepped away, the warden took close-up photos of the vehicle.

Nothing was left on the windscreen, and no one approached the driver at the time. The driver had no idea there had been any alleged breach or that a PCN had been issued. The notice was simply posted to me later as the registered keeper, asking for payment, the usual tactic.

They even claimed in their evidence that they carried out a “survey”, checked with staff, and even checked the toilets to confirm that the occupants were not on site, which honestly made me laugh.

At this rate, they’ll probably start saying you’re not allowed to breathe while parked there as part of the terms and conditions. What a joke.

For reference, this McDonald’s is located in West London.

Coupon-mad

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find any that went further than that (with an unsuccessful POPLA decision).

Wow! You found no court cases here? We do several every day.

There are hundreds of thousands like yours over the years and the POPLA diversion means nothing!

The NEWBIES thread 2nd post (about court claim stage) already tells you the exact forum search words to use to find completed claims won.

And it already answers your earlier question about the zero CCJ risk.

And there are 800 examples in @Umkomaas' DCB Legal discontinuances thread. Which is what will happen to your case too because MET feature regularly in that thread.

Archerzee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919069#Comment_81919069

Thank you so much for the advice, it really means a lot. I’m also very grateful for your post; it was truly inspiring and a great read. I hope that at some point I’ll be able to contribute and help others here too 😀

By the way, I think there may have been a small misunderstanding. What I meant was that I couldn’t find a case with the exact same circumstances (and criteria) as mine. The ones I came across that were somewhat similar all seemed to end either at the POPLA stage or before reaching that point. However, I think I need to spend a bit more time reading about topics related to MET Parking Services in general, rather than focusing only on very specific cases.

I’m continuing to read through as much information as I can. In my previous reply I was responding to Jame4ters, and he’s right that there are a few similar “leaving premises” cases, but from what I’ve seen they all concluded at or before the POPLA stage.

For now, I’ll follow the examples and guidance provided. I’m currently working through the steps in “POST 2”, so it seems like it’s now a bit of a waiting game until I receive a “Letter of Claim” or Letter Before Claim (LBC).

Thanks again to everyone for the help, and I’ll be sure to keep you all posted!

Coupon-mad

Maybe read the MET Parking cases in Umkomaas' thread. He's linked every one! Some will have gone through POPLA.