• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

    [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

    Should I start saving up then? :P

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

      I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

      The ICO registration linked to is the same as referred to in my appeal. It does not include CCTV/ANPR. For an example of such please see https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/Z7160659 which includes a reference to CCTV.

      "CCTV - Crime Prevention and/or Staff MonitoringCCTV is used for maintaining the security of property and premises and for preventing and investigating crime, it may also be used to monitor staff when carrying out work duties. For these reasons the information processed may include visual images, personal appearance and behaviours. This information may be about staff, customers and clients, offenders and suspected offenders, members of the public and those inside, entering or in the immediate vicinity of the area under surveillance. Where necessary or required this information is shared with the data subjects themselves, employees and agents, services providers, police forces, security organisations and persons making an enquiry."

      It is abundantly clear this is not the case for the the operator and the BPA code has not be complied with which is a requirement of the code itself and the contract of authority.



      The purported contract put in to evidence states it covers McDonalds Bridgemead Great western Way Bridgemead Swindon . The pcn states that it it is for McDonalds Bridgemead Great West Swindon. PoFA para 9 requires the relevant land to be specified. The BPA code para 7 requires the land to be clearly defined. As these 2 do not tally there is either a fault with the contract or the NtK.

      On point 7 of their keeper liability statement the operator states "As the registered keeper has provided us with the name and current address for service of the driver of the vehicle, we must pursue the driver for payment of the outstanding parking charge notice." There is no evidence of the drivers identity included and if they know who it is they cannot pursue the registered keeper as per PoFA 2012 para 5 1 (b).

      The operator states that i haven't stated how the NtK is flawed but has ignored that the period of parking is not specified as the vehicle was moving when it passed the cameras, not parked.

      The photographs of the signs are undated and not time stamped or certified. They are evidence of nothing.

      M1

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

        Damn, wasn't expecting this. However Popla only allows me 2000 characters, so last 3 paragraphs won't fit in the box Something in this that isn't as important as others that I could get rid off? Wanted to check with you before messing something up. Thanks [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] I appreciate your help on this

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

          Forgot to add http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...a-process.html which shows you how to add it as a file.

          M1

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

            Yes, I have followed that process when originally starting an appeal, however this doesn't apply to replying to evidence provided by MET Services, and on that page Popla doesn't allow attachments, just a comment. :S

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

              Ah ha, got you.

              I would like torespond to the operators evidence as follows :-


              The ICO registrationlinked to is the same as referred to in my appeal. It does notinclude CCTV/ANPR. For an example of such please seehttps://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/Z7160659 which includes areference to CCTV.


              "CCTV - CrimePrevention and/or Staff Monitoring CCTV ……." (not enoughcharacters to copy and paste the whole part but have emailed popla)


              It is abundantlyclear this is not the case for the the operator and the BPA code hasnot be complied with which is a requirement of the code itself andthe contract of authority.


              The purportedcontract put in to evidence states it covers McDonalds BridgemeadGreat western Way Bridgemead Swindon . The pcn states that it it isfor McDonalds Bridgemead Great West Swindon. PoFA para 9 requires therelevant land to be specified. The BPA code para 7 requires the landto be clearly defined. As these 2 do not tally there is either afault with the contract or the NtK.


              On point 7 of theirkeeper liability statement the operator states "As theregistered keeper has provided us with the name and current addressfor service of the driver of the vehicle, we must pursue the driverfor payment of the outstanding parking charge notice." There isno evidence of the drivers identity included and if they know who itis they cannot pursue the registered keeper as per PoFA 2012 para 5 1(b).


              The operator statesthat i haven't stated how the NtK is flawed but has ignored that theperiod of parking is not specified as the vehicle was moving when itpassed the cameras, not parked.


              The photographs ofthe signs are undated and not time stamped or certified. They areevidence of nothing.




              Then email popla too with the original and a cover note.

              M1

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

                Done it like you said, emailed popla too. Thanks for the quick response, now lets wait and see what the outcome will be.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

                  Well, unfortunately the case was unsuccessful. Thanks for all the help in this case, I guess I gotta dig up some cash now

                  Statement from popla if you're interested:

                  The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number GK51HYM, entering the car park at 06:11, and exiting at 08:01, totalling a stay of one hour and 50 minutes. The operator states that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver of the vehicle has exceeded the maximum permitted stay. The appellant advises that the operator has not complied with PoFA. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in the PoFA must be adhered to. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. The appellant states that the operator has no standing or authority to issue charges on the land. The appellant has quoted the entirety of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided evidence of the agreement it holds with the landowner, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. While I acknowledge the appellant’s reference to the whole of Section 7, and states that a full contract must be provided as evidence of authority, I must advise that Section 22.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria set out to POPLA by the BPA, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. The appellant states that the operator is not registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for the correct purpose, which is a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice. While I acknowledge this, I have not considered this to be entirely relevant. When looking at appeals, POPLA’s role is to consider whether the motorist complied with the terms and conditions, and whether the PCN was issued correctly. As this has no impact on the motorist’s ability to comply with the requirements of the car park, I have not taken this into consideration. Should the appellant feel that the operator does not have authority from the ICO, they would need to address it directly with the BPA. The appellant states that the signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states “90 Minutes Maximum Stay: This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes. If you do not comply with the Terms and Conditions of use, a Parking Charge Notice may be issued to the screen of the vehicle and/or MET Parking Services Limited may contact the DVLA to request the Registered Keeper’s details and send a Parking Charge Notice to the Registered Keeper”. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. The appellant states that the signage does not comply with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states “Patrols and/or automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras monitor vehicle activity in this private car park: Please note that you may receive a parking charge notice for contravening any terms and conditions of use”. I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the BPA minimum standards in respect of this issue. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver exceeded the maximum stay period, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

                    The appellant states that the operator is not registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for the correct purpose, which is a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice. While I acknowledge this, I have not considered this to be entirely relevant.
                    ). The written confirmation must be given beforeyou can start operating on the land in question andgive you the authority to carry out all the aspects of carpark management for the site that you are responsiblefor. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or theirappointed agent) requires you to keep to the Codeof Practice
                    But apparently doesn't matter whether they actually do or not.

                    I'll come back to this when i have time later this week.

                    M1

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: MET Parking Charge for McDonalds parking (Received POPLA Code)

                      http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_P..._Services.html

                      They don't, as yet, do court. Think twice about paying.

                      Complain to complaints@popla.co.uk & director@ispa.co.uk cc aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk


                      Dear Sirs,

                      Popla ref xxxxx

                      I write in regard to the standard of adjudication in my own appeal. Assessor xxxx found that although the BPA code requires all contracts between it's members and their clients
                      "7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carryingout parking management, you must have the written
                      authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed
                      agent). The written confirmation must be given before
                      you can start operating on the land in question and
                      give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car
                      park management for the site that you are responsible
                      for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their
                      appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code
                      of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue
                      outstanding parking charges."

                      However the assessor dismisses a significant breach of the code of practice which the operator is required to keep to "The appellant states that the operator is not registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for the correct purpose, which is a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice. While I acknowledge this, I have not considered this to be entirely relevant. "

                      It would appear that the assessor is acknowledging the rules that that the operator has to adhere to the code, 7.1 but then says that it doesn't relly matter. The assessor needs to be retrained in my view.

                      Yours sincerely




                      Then fire off a complaint to the ICO and cc the BPA.

                      M1

                      Comment

                      View our Terms and Conditions

                      LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                      If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                      If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                      Working...
                      X