Met parking services appeal rejected

[Kati]

Re: Met parking services appeal rejected

[MENTION=66893]major483[/MENTION] ... I've got your email, just sorting it out now xx

[mystery1]

Re: Met parking services appeal rejected

[MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] sent me via email due to technical issues. I'll sort out a reply later.

Laughed when they said they were not relying on keeper liability given the registered keeper is a company and they don't know who was driving

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Met parking services appeal rejected

I would like to add the following to my appeal.


"The registered keeper details obtained according to the operator were

Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA, these were supplied on 8 th
May 2015 as:
M Ltd
xx
xx
xx"


This is a company. A company cannot drive.

The operator states in reply to number 8 in which the registered keeper and appellant denied keeper liability requirements had been met

"MET Parking Services Ltd are not seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act "


As Met are not chasing the registered keeper, who obviously cannot be the driver, one asks just who are they chasing ? To chase the keeper they must meet the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012 schedule 4 para 9. They haven't and in any case they are not chasing the keeper. A company cannot drive so they cannot chase them as driver.


Met are clearly an agent as in the letter from McDonalds there are terms which state McDonalds must approve any terms and conditions. As an agent their losses are irrelevant when calculating a GPEOL.




Tempted not to even enter that as you'll win when the assessor sees it but might as well point it out.

M1