MET Parking Services at McDonald's North Acton

[charitynjw]

ostell

they gave me a verification code:

" 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 verficiation code: 38602980**. Please note that POPLA will consider"

Shall I just ignore them then?

Just shows what an incompetent bunch they are!

But best to do the POPLA appeal.

Appeal as registered keeper.

[AnnaRam]

@charitynjw

Thank you for your advice.

I have gone on the poppa website however and it says I need to provide proof to support my argument.

What proof can I give them that I was not the driver. Is it worth appealing to POPLA?- they might just reject my appeal and then I would have to pay £100..

[charitynjw]

You do not have to prove whether you were or were not the driver.....the parking co needs to do that.
Remain silent about that issue & only respond as the registered keeper.

[ostell]

There is no need to prove you weren't the driver, MET have provided the proof themselves that the Notice to Keeper was not delivered in time to comply with POFA, the proof is on the NTK, and therefore there can be no keeper liability.

Look around for POPLA appeals and post it your version on here for critique before you send. The first item would be that they have not complied with 9 (4) (b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, namely not delivering to the keeper within 14 days and therefore there can be no keeper liability. You can then carry on about the non visible signs etc, there lack of contract and you want then to provide the contract.

[AnnaRam]

ostell charitynjw

Dear Sir/Madam

I, the keeper of the vehicle, have been served with a parking fine of £50 from MET Parking Service.
The driver, entered McDonald's North Acton car park at 20:02 on 20th December 2017 and decided to park up and eat the food in the car. They failed to see the signs that state motorists only have a 90 minutes parking limit as these signs were not placed in visible areas across the parking lot. According to the parking charge notice, the driver was there for 113 minutes, so they stayed 23 minutes later than they were supposed to.
They have proof (transaction screenshots of £15.26) that they were a paying customer on 20th December 2017. To my understanding, this parking charge includes the time the driver enters the premises and leaves, which means they do not monitor the parking lot however only monitor the parking time- therefore the driver unknowingly entered into the drive thru, waited in the queue to order food, once the food was ordered tried to find a parking space all whilst incurring time on their 90 minutes window. The driver remained inside the vehicle the whole time and left as soon as they had finished eating.

I would also like to state that MET Parking Services did not not comply with 9 (4) (b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, namely not delivering to the keeper within 14 days and therefore there can be no keeper liability as the letter did not reach me on the date it was supposed to.

I hope you can accept this appeal.

Yours fiathfully

XXXX

[ostell]

They are not interested in mitigating circumstances, only reasons why the PCN is not valid.

I, as keeper, am appealing the issue of PCN No, xxxx issued by MET parking services

1) The Notice to keeper failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, namely section 9 (4) (b), the requirement to deliver the NOtice to Keeper within 14 days, The Notice gives a Date of Contravention of 20th December 2017 and an issue date of 8th January 2018. Not even taking into consideration the time to deliver this is a period of 19 days, well in excess of the relevant period of 14 days required to hold the keeper liable.

2) The signs at the location are not obvious. (ONLY PUT THIS IN IF TRUE) They are not illuminated and therefore cannot be seen outside of daylight hours) They could not therefore possibly create any alleged contract between MET Parking and the driver.

3) The Time recorded is the time between the cameras, recorded while the car was moving. The driver did not immediately park but rather queued to order and wait in the queue for that order to be completed before parking. The period of actually parking is thus significantly less that recorded by the cameras and as a member of the BPA MET are obliged, as a condition of the Code of Practise, to allow a minimum of 10 minutes grace period at the end of a period of parking, and queueing is not parking, before issuing charges.

4) MET parking have not shown that they have the right to impose penalties for alleged breaches on this site and I require that they provide a copy of their contract for this site detailing that right and its conditions. A witness statement purporting to have sight of the contract is insufficient.

[AnnaRam]

ostell charitynjw

Thank you so much for your help! You have honestly opened my eyes and have been such great help to me. I really appreciate it.

Once POPLA replies I will let you guys know

[AnnaRam]

ostellcharitynjw

Hey guys! I got good news from POPLA:

"Dear Miss

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ****.

MET Parking Services have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team"

I just wanted to thank you both so much for your help in this case! Im so glad they've just dropped it- thank goodness!!
Thank you guys so much again!!