PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Advice - MET Parking - McDonalds, Overstayed 2am
Nasrallah
post Thu, 2 May 2019 - 23:09
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 2 May 2019
From: London
Member No.: 103,672



Hi all, have been directed to this forums as you guys are obviously the most knowledgeable.

Long story short, sounds stupid but at roughly 1:30am the driver of the alleged NTK entered McDonald’s drive through and ended up staying till 3:30am - 30 minute overstaying the 1 hour 30 limit.

As the registered keeper, I have appealed the alleged invoice using the MSE template from the newbies thread. - Drive has not been identified in the appeal not that it seems to matter to them anyway because the NtK is pretty clear in their intent to pursue me as registered keeper.

Any suggestions? - appeal to POPLA, ignore (if definitely don't have a leg to stand on) or pay up , all correspondence including signs attached (Again, my appeal was word to word the MSE newbies template).

Appreciate any advice at this stage, as kind of lost what to do/

This post has been edited by Nasrallah: Fri, 3 May 2019 - 15:25
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
Advertisement
post Thu, 2 May 2019 - 23:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dave65
post Fri, 3 May 2019 - 00:36
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 738
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Did you give the ID of the vehicle driver in your appeal?

If not edit your post and remove anything that may identify who drove the vehicle.

Refer only to "the driver" did this or that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 3 May 2019 - 07:51
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,396
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Fri, 3 May 2019 - 01:36) *
Did you give the ID of the vehicle driver in your appeal?

Looks like the NtK was compliant to pursue the keeper...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nasrallah
post Fri, 3 May 2019 - 22:01
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 2 May 2019
From: London
Member No.: 103,672



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 3 May 2019 - 08:51) *
QUOTE (Dave65 @ Fri, 3 May 2019 - 01:36) *
Did you give the ID of the vehicle driver in your appeal?

Looks like the NtK was compliant to pursue the keeper...


This was right. - writing up my POPLA statement, going to post my draft here, wish my journey luck
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nasrallah
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 14:27
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 2 May 2019
From: London
Member No.: 103,672



Hi all,

Can I ask for opinions on the signage attached,

Thanks

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nasrallah
post Tue, 21 May 2019 - 12:29
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 2 May 2019
From: London
Member No.: 103,672



Still waiting for a POPLA reply, do they usually take quite long?.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nasrallah
post Thu, 30 May 2019 - 15:49
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 2 May 2019
From: London
Member No.: 103,672



So I appealed the parking charge through POPLA as a keeper, MET have just replied through a 13 page PDF file refuting each point one by one. I have entailed the summary of their appeal below;

"In his appeal to POPLA, Mr ******** raises the following grounds of appeal:

• The signs are not prominent, clear or legible We note Mr ****** comments however we are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs in place in this car park and the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. We have also included images of the signs taken at night in order to demonstrate that they remain visible in the hours of darkness. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions.
• No evidence of landowner authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
• The NTK does not meet the requirements of PoFA We are confident that we have complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section E of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack.
• The entrance sign is inadequately positioned and does not comply with Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice As demonstrated in the overview of the site found in Section E the road the car park is accessed from is one-way, and therefore the entrance sign is positioned to be seen approaching from the direction of travel. We are confident that the signs, which are made using retro-reflective material that meets BS EN 12899 - 1:2007 class RA2, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs, are set at the height recommended for Road Traffic Signs, and that there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists. The signs are visible during the hours of darkness as they reflect light from the lamp posts they are fixed to, ambient light and light from vehicles themselves. It remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
• ANPR is unreliable and inaccurate Our ANPR cameras are peripherals attached to a central computer system. The computer’s clock is kept accurate using the internet. The date and time stamps on the ANPR images are accurate and consistent as they are provided by the computer system and not the peripheral. We are confident that we conduct the necessary checks and tests to ensure ANPR quality. Our systems and processes are also regularly audited by the BPA. We do not believe we need to provide copies of these audits at this time.
• The signs do not adequately advise what the ANPR data will be used for As can be seen in Section E of our evidence pack, the signage clearly states that there is CCTV/ANPR in effect in this car park and that by entering the area motorists consent to the recording of their data for the purposes of managing the car park,
• No information regarding motorist’s rights in relation to their data and no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate The signage in Section E also clearly advises motorists of their rights in relation to their data and where to find our full privacy policy. This information is also available on the Notice to Keeper, a copy of which may be found in Section B. We do not believe we need to disclose our privacy impact assessments at this time.
• The photographic evidence does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice We are confident that the photographs meet the necessary requirements. As can be seen in Section E of our evidence pack there is only one vehicle entrance and exit to the location, and the ANPR cameras are placed in a way to only capture vehicles that enter and exit the site. In summary, the terms and conditions for the use of the car park are clearly stated on signs displayed prominently at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that this car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only and there is a maximum stay of 90 minutes. Mr ******** 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."

Any opinions on this appeal, - looks like I've just been ripped apart laugh.gif time to give up?.

This post has been edited by Nasrallah: Thu, 30 May 2019 - 16:00
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nasrallah
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 12:48
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 2 May 2019
From: London
Member No.: 103,672



Just to keep you updated, comments made on their evidence with the help of a very knowledgeable member of MSE forums;


Under heading 'Night time photographs', none of the photographs entailed match the 'daytime photograph' signs included above them. The 'night time pics' do not have a readable large font of £100 penalty on them. None of the signs/pics of signs are dated so which photographed signs are we to believe?. The 'Daylight pics' are a different design entirely so either the daylight ones or the night time ones are from a different McDonalds entirely (or from a different date).

I note the pictures of the drive through signage, however time spent at drive through is not controllable by MET and does not form part of parking and therefore does not fall under the contractual 'parking' period.

The landowner letter is three years old, talking about a 2010 contract that does not state the expiry date nor confirm that the contract continues into perpetuity. It is mentioned in 2016 as a rolling contract but we are now in 2019. Nor does the letter meet all the BPA CoP requirements 7 a-e as set out in the appeal and the contract is pre-POFA and heavily redacted.

MET have described their ANPR system as being attached to a computer which is 'kept accurate using the internet'. The internet is not infallible and is still susceptible to faults and MET have failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove that their ANPR systems has actually been RECENTLY audited and maintained to date in order to prevent errors and ensure accuracy.

Lets see what happens!,

This post has been edited by Nasrallah: Fri, 31 May 2019 - 12:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 22nd September 2019 - 17:16
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.