MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

[ducati853]

Hi Everyone,

I have been reading these threads for a couple of days and there is lots of helpful information that I am extremely grateful for.

I received a PCN from MET for overstaying in the car park at McDonalds Basildon by approx 30 minutes where I was a genuine patron and made 2 purchases during the stay. I did not see the signs stating that there was a maximum of 90 minutes stay in the car park.

I appealed to MET using a standard letter I found online and they ignored all of my points and sent me the standard appeal rejection letter.

My car is a company car and the PCN was sent to my place of work who forwarded it onto myself. I mistakenly identified myself on the appeal to MET as I had not read the advice here that states not to do so. MET ignored the fact that I had identified myself on their rejection letter and forwarded the rejection to my place of work once again with no mention of my name.

I am now going to appeal to POPLA using one of the standard templates I have found on this site, but I am confused as to which of the points are relevant to the fact that it is a company car and I am not the registered keeper.

Would somebody kindly point me in the right direction of which points I should use from the following for template:

1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.

2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.

3. MET parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.

4. MET parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.

6. Keeper liability.

Thanks very much in advance

[paulajayne]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Try going to Maccy Ds and speak to manager, be firm and demand that they, as principal contact MET and cancel it.

Do it when they are busy and ensure that all can hear you.

Be firm and keep a cool head.

[mystery1]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

I'm out at the moment but #2 will win it.

M1

[ducati853]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Thanks very much for the responses, I will go into McDonalds and speak to the manager as recommended, it cannot harm! I will appeal on the strength of number 2, but to be honest, there are plenty of signs in the car park in retrospect, I just didn't see them at the time I visited, but they've sent me a satellite shot that shows there are 12 of them in the car park.

Is there really no value in appealing on the strength of The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss anymore, since the changes in the appeal structure?

[mystery1]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

My current appeals are

jaysanctuarypopla.rtf

lapyiwinpopla.rtf

Obviously edited to suit and in your case keeper liability removed.

M1

[ducati853]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Thanks very much for your help M1!! I used the appeal structure you suggested and have submitted to POPLA, fingers crossed!

[mystery1]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

It's important that when MET submit evidence to counter their rubbish with particular emphasis on non compliance with 7.3 of the BPA code of practice. All McD authority fails this.

M1

[ducati853]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Well, as expected I have received the evidence pack from Met in regards to my appeal. I would have liked to attach it here for future reference to others, but as it's a pdf I cannot sanitize the personal information.

They have provided a case summary which is stating how clearly all the signs are in the car park and the relevant time of entry and exit that i made. They then proceed to stating how they firstly contacted the car lease company, followed by my employer and finally myself and that my appeal to MET contained no mitigating circumstances etc.

They then proceed to answer the appeal questions I stated to Popla. I appealed on the basis of 1) signage and 2) no standing - Although these were the points I made clear I was appealing against, I also included information in regards to being a genuine mcDonalds patron at the time (with evidence) and stated that the £100 fine did not appear to be a genuine estimate of loss of profit. I also said separately that i did not enter into a contract as I never saw the signs, which is obvious as I would have left in good time if i had for the sake of 27 minutes.

They provide evidence that the 12 signs in the car park are prominent and include a picture of each. In regards to them not having any interest in the land, they raise the Beavis case and state that it was upheld that a contract was formed once the motorist had entered the car park?

I had also asked them in my original appeal to supply details of the contract they had with McDonalds, which they just ignored, but have now included in this appeal that they should not have to provide this information, but do so anyway, with lots of sanitisation to the documents to protect "sensitive information"

They include all information so far in this case and go on to summarise by saying that I have admitted I was in the car park for 118 minutes and therefore the charge should stand.


They appear pretty confident on the basis of this Beavis case, is it worth me giving a right to reply as I have 7 days to so this apparently?

Many Thanks as always.

[mystery1]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Email it to [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] and she'll sanitise and post.

M1

[ducati853]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

I have forwarded the pdf to [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] and linked to the thread Thanks once again for your help.

[Kati]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Got it
[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] ... for ref:
Contract pg 7
Original appeal pg 21

[ducati853]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Many Thanks for doing that so promptly Kati

[mystery1]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

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

The operator has provided images of the signs which show it has failed to follow the BPA code, Section 21.1 of the BPA’s Code of Practice states, “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. I note that the sign merely advises that the “car park monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.


The operator has provided many pictures of signage, however the only readable pictures of the signs are close ups. Slides 37 & 38 in the evidence bundle are unclear so they are certainly not clear from a moving vehicle as required. In addition the operator states that extra time could have been obtained from the manager however this information is nowhere to be found on the signs. The signs are therefore unclear and fail the test as laid down in Beavis and do not comply with the BPA code on the available evidence.


The letter of authority and redacted contract fail to adhere, or at least do not show adherence, to the BPA code. Paragraph 7 is clear. Amongst the other items it requires "the definition of the land on which you may operate, so thatthe boundaries of the land can be clearly defined" which is nowhere to be found in the operators evidence. Indeed a contract with so many listed addresses would be enormous if it did so for all sites as it appears there are at least 618 of them.


M1

[ducati853]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

Many Thanks M1, have submitted the above, I will update in due course.

[ducati853]

Re: MET- Appeal rejected- overstay at McDonalds car park POPLA Help!!

I have had the decision by POPLA after my right to reply and unfortunately in this instance I have been unsuccessful. POPLA feel that MET have demonstrated that adequate signage was present at the McDonalds in question and I have broke the terms and conditions of the contract by overstaying.

I guess my only recourse now is to pay the £100 PCN and learn from my mistake? Thank you for all the advice offered during the process, I still believe it is worth taking them on in some circumstances.

Please find below the dialogue from POPLA stating as to why my case was unsuccessful, in the hope it may help someone else in the future:


Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant stayed within the car park for longer than the stay was authorised.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that they were not aware of the parking restrictions as the signage was not clear upon entering the site. The appellant states that the operator does not have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. In addition, the appellant states that the charge cannot be considered as a reasonable and genuine pre estimate of loss


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator states that it issued the PCN on the basis that the appellant stayed within the car park for longer than the stay was authorised. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle in question entering the car park on 22 December 2015, at 12.05pm and exiting at 14.03pm. A total stay of 118 minutes. The appellant states that they were not aware of the parking restrictions as the signage was not clear upon entering the site. The appellant states that the operator does not have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site in question. The entrance signage states, “MacDonald’s Customers only Maximum Stay 90 minutes. See notices in car park for terms and conditions of use.” The signage within the site states, “MacDonald’s Customers only Maximum Stay 90 minutes. This car park is for the use of MacDonald’s Customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes. Parking Charge up to £100 if you do not comply with the terms and conditions of use.” Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs ‘must be conspicuous and legible and written intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand’. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the Operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires Operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has provided sufficient evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has proven that it meets the required authority to operate on the land in question. In addition, the appellant states that the charge cannot be considered as a reasonable and genuine pre estimate of loss The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” The entrance signage at this site states, “MacDonald’s Customers only Maximum Stay 90 minutes. See notices in car park for terms and conditions of use.” The signage within the site states, “MacDonald’s Customers only Maximum Stay 90 minutes. This car park is for the use of MacDonald’s Customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes. Parking Charge up to £100 if you do not comply with the terms and conditions of use.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. As such, from the evidence provided to me I can only conclude that the appellant has not adhered to the terms and conditions set out at the site. Therefore, I consider that the operator has issued the PCN correctly