• 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 100 fine

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

  • Met Parking 100 fine

    Hi hoping someone on here can help as seen similar posts.

    I received a NTK from met parking for overstay in a Macdonalds Car Park.

    I think technically i dont have much wriggle room, but advice is appreciated.

    The Facts: I parked in a 180mins parking slot for 217mins. They say they are clear signs etc which there probably are so lets assume they have me in a car park having breached the time limit and i should have reasonably seen the signs.

    This is however grossly unfair. I was sat in Macdonalds on my laptop buying coffees for the duration. This signs are a bag of shite, as we all know putting a tiny sign up in the corner of a car park isnt particularly clear to anyone.

    Based on above My argument is as follows:

    I was not aware of the signage for the carpark as such I did not intentionally breach conditions.

    The car park was 10% full for the duration. I was the only customer sitting inside. I was purchasing coffee from the store. My unintentional breaching of conditions did not lead to a loss of earnings or car parking capacity. Therefore the charge (100£) is punitive and grossly unproportional with the offence, being as it was unintentional

    Do i have a case here, or should i simply pay the reduced rate of 60 quid and save myself the frustration?

    Advice gratefully recieved!
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Hi and welcome

    First thing to do is edit your post so identity of driver cannot be inferred eg state "the driver parked .... etc"
    Secondly post up the NTK, removing identity details but leaving all dates etc visible.
    Thirdly post pictures of signage if possible

    Have you compared the details on the NTK with the requirements of POFA 2012 schedula 4 para 9?

    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