Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • GLJGO
    • By GLJGO 10th Apr 18, 1:45 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 4Thanks
    GLJGO
    MET POPLA rejection
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 18, 1:45 PM
    MET POPLA rejection 10th Apr 18 at 1:45 PM
    Here it is - what next? Write to McDonald's? Write to MP? Self-combust?

    your case
    The appellant states that they were a customer on site on the day of the parking contravention. They say that the signage is neither big enough, nor prominent enough. They say that there were no signs within the restaurant or play area and on the day of the contravention they were treating their three children and allowed them to play a little longer than usual. The appellant says that the surrounding retail parks are all free to park and they had no reason to assume that McDonalds was any different and they have no faith in the operator after the wrong verification code was provided. The appellant says that a 90 minute restriction on a restaurant with an indoor play area which entices families to stay longer is not acceptable.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’McDonalds Customer Car Park…90 Minutes maximum stay…By parking in this car park you are entering into a contractual agreement and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of use. You also accept liability to pay a Parking Charge of £100 if you fail to comply with them…This car park is for the use of McDonalds customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 17:20 and leaving at 19:07 after completing a parking session of 107 minutes. The appellant states that they were a customer on site on the day of the parking contravention. They say that the signage is neither big enough, nor prominent enough. They say that there were no signs within the restaurant or play area and on the day of the contravention they were treating their three children and allowed them to play a little longer than usual. The appellant says that the surrounding retail parks are all free to park and they had no reason to assume that McDonalds was any different and they have no faith in the operator after the wrong verification code was provided. The appellant says that a 90 minute restriction on a restaurant with an indoor play area which entices families to stay longer is not acceptable. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments, the terms and conditions of the car park still apply. The signage in and around the area clearly states that the maximum stay time is 90 minutes. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. On looking at the evidence provided, I am satisfied that these terms have been displayed clearly and sufficiently. In addition, the operator has provided a site map to show the location and availability of the 18 signs on site. From this, I am satisfied that the car park contains adequate signage. I acknowledge the evidence provided by the appellant to show that there is no signage within the restaurant, however the signage will be displayed in the area which is controlled by the operator which is the car park, not the restaurant. In addition, within the photographic evidence provided by appellant of the car park, I can see evidence of the terms and conditions signage present. Again, I am satisfied that the car park contains adequate signage. It is the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the available signage on site and ensure that their parking complies with the applicable terms and conditions before leaving their vehicle unattended on site. In this instance, the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time and as a result they have breached the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Apr 18, 2:16 PM
    • 3,700 Posts
    • 4,523 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 2:16 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 2:16 PM
    Pay (which we dont recommend) or wait 6 years.
    MET dont do court
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 18, 12:47 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:47 AM
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:47 AM
    Same as here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5802568

    No big deal, ignore them unless they try a claim. Keep all paperwork, in case, for 5 years!
    • GLJGO
    • By GLJGO 16th Jun 18, 2:20 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    GLJGO
    • #4
    • 16th Jun 18, 2:20 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Jun 18, 2:20 PM
    Taken the advice given on this site to ignore further correspondence, unless they claim.

    So far, all we have received is letters from DRP. Suddenly, the 'fine' amount has increased from £100 to £160.

    Will continue to ignore these DRP letters if that is the continued advice from this website, until such time as a letter with legal authority arrives.

    For reassurance, I'm assuming this is OK?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Jun 18, 2:40 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #5
    • 16th Jun 18, 2:40 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Jun 18, 2:40 PM
    You can be reassured that ignoring debt collector's letters is still the way to go.

    Post again on this thread if you get a Letter Before Claim or official court correspondence.
    .
    • GLJGO
    • By GLJGO 20th Jun 18, 10:30 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    GLJGO
    • #6
    • 20th Jun 18, 10:30 PM
    • #6
    • 20th Jun 18, 10:30 PM
    An update on this.

    I wrote to the chief executive of McDonald's in the UK, Paul Pomroy, complaining about the damage MET's parking charge has caused one of his valued customers.

    He forwarded it to the customer services who in turn forwarded it to the manager of the branch in question.

    In short, they have told MET to cancel the parking charge.

    Time will tell if they do but this is what they have been told to do by McDonald's. I'm counting this as a victory.

    For info, the email for McDonald's UK chief executive is: paul.pomroy@uk.mcd.com
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 20th Jun 18, 11:57 PM
    • 2,812 Posts
    • 3,543 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #7
    • 20th Jun 18, 11:57 PM
    • #7
    • 20th Jun 18, 11:57 PM
    well done .......



    now would you kindly consider watching ... reading the below them complaining ...


    every little helps


    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

    ''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.


    Ralph
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

207Posts Today

1,346Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @GillsSarah: Interesting! I always used to buy big name products cos I thought they?d be stronger. @MartinSLewis has changed my mind on?

  • RT @think_jessica: Think Jessica the Film 30 min doc/drama based on my mother?s true story. Narrated by @MartinSLewis is now live on https:?

  • RT @kelsher123: @MartinSLewis First time switcher! And no, it wasn?t as challenging as I thought???? A British Gas customer so no brainier. Th?

  • Follow Martin