MET Parking Services ticket

[lindadesusa]

Hi,
I'm new here. Just thought somebody could hopefully help. I received a £100 fine for parking at McDonald's and overstaying my welcome. I appealed and asked for a popla code and I've just received a letter back from MET saying they've rejected my appeal and have supplied me with a popla code. Now what?

[Amethyst]

http://www.popla.co.uk/poplaappealprocess

ostell

[ostell]

So what did your appeal say? Could you post up the PCN with identifying details redacted but leave the dates.

Has the driver been identified, yes or no? If no then edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver....." etc.

Not an airport by any chance?

[lindadesusa]

Hi, thank you for your comment. When i first appealed to the MET, this is pretty much what I said:

Dear Sirs,

I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver was a customer of McDonalds and did not see the signage. In any event the charges are penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss as well as being an amount larger than permitted under the BPA code of practice to which you subscribe.

I will not name the driver as i am under no statutory obligation to do so.

Please accept my apeal or supply a popla code.

Yours etc

The MET got back to me saying they've rejected the appeal and they provided a popla code. I appealed on the popla website pretty much saying the same thing I said in my appeal to the MET.
Got an email from popla just yesterday with the evidence the MET have provided, which is very comprehensive with pictures of the signage, the way they appear at daytime and nighttime, dimensions and number of sign in the car park, etc.

I've been given 7 days to respond to their evidence and I'm not sure what I should say...any suggestions would be greatly appreciated? Thanks.

[lindadesusa]

No, not at the airport...it was a local McDonald's

[ostell]

So let's see what the PCN said.

It's no wonder the rejected that appeal! GPEOL has been dead since the beavis case and marks you out as not really knowing what is happening.

For the POPLA appeal you object to any SMART statements that you do not agree with, no objection then it is assumed you agree with it.

But let's see the PCN first.

So does the driver have any pictures of the signage, from the drivers point of view, and at about the same time.

[lindadesusa]

This is what they said at the start of their Operator evidence:

We refer the assessor to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis which may be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...0-judgment.pdf. This ruling revolved around a charge of similar size and nature and the judges found, inter alia, that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable. • The driver was a customer and did not see the signs The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the 9 signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that the car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises and that there is a maximum stay in the car park of 90 minutes. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. The photographic evidence in Section E demonstrates Mrs Taylor’s vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. In light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

[lindadesusa]

No, the driver doesn't have any photos of the signage as the driver did not expect to get fined.

[lindadesusa]

ostell Can you please help? I have 7 days to respond to the Operator evidence on the Popla website. I found another post where you've advised to write this:

Sirs

Ref PCN xxxxx VRM yyyyyy

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the PCN you issued. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the warning to the keeper, contrary to section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me.

There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc.


Can I use this same statement to comment on the evidence provided by the Operator? Many thanks..

[ostell]

That is what is for appealing the PCN itself not appealing to POPLA. As I haven't seen your PCN, despite many requests for you to post it, I can't say whether that is correct. There may be other POFA fails on the PCN but how can I tell? Here's POFA, look for yourself. Paragraph 9 in particular. You need to post up the PCN if you want help.

You have to go through the operator evidence and refute any statement you do not agree with. If you don't refute it then it is assumed that you agree with what they say.

To be honest as you've already appealed to POPLA I don't think they'll accept new comments, unless you can work it in with a rejection of some of their statements

[lindadesusa]

ostell Here it is

[ostell]

9 (2) (e) is not in the required format. 9(2) (f) is there. Look for other missing items, such as creditor and add them into your appeal.

[lindadesusa]

ostell Sorry to be daft, but what does that mean in layman's terms? So should i comment on their evidence on Popla that 9(2)(2) is not mentioned?

[lindadesusa]

ostell I meant 9(2)(e)

[ostell]

To understand you need to read POFA. Have you done so? I gave the link earlier. It should then be apparent.