PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MET Parking services McDonald’s Southall, 7 weeks late
mercury2
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 14:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,118



Hi, The keeper received a NTK, the driver allegedly parked the car and left the site.



The other issue is, the supposed breach occurred on October 3rd 2018, and the NTK was issued on 26th November 2018, so more than 7 weeks late!


Would is be better to appeal on both of these grounds, or would the lateness be enough?

Many thanks for any advice,





This post has been edited by mercury2: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 00:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 14:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 14:19
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Its ONLY late if the drivers identity isnt known

You haev told everyone who drove
So, get editing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 14:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



1. Edit your post immediately so you do not give away any clue as to the drivers identity. Refer always to "the driver" and "the Keeper". Do it now.

IF there had been a notice to Driver, then the NtK would (just) be in time. However since the driver was in the car the whole time, then the following should be sent back to them...

Sirs

Ref PCN xxxxx VRM yyyyyy

I am the keeper of the above vehicle and 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. No Notice to Driver was issued. As such the Notice to Keeper has not been delivered in time with the requirements in the POFA Sched 4, 9(5).

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

I expect you to cancel this ticket on receipt, otherwise issue a POPLA code where I will appeal and require them to instruct you to cancel this PCN.

Any further communication with me on this matter, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct, whose wasted costs will be yours to bear.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 14:44
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Get editing, as requested, otherwise you could be snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name 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


Come back if you get a POPLA code instead of it being cancelled.

Here's POFA for your information


Get editing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mercury2
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 17:11
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,118



Thank you very much for your help, re editing, I had no idea icon_redface.gif hope I haven’t left it too late as I just got home and checked the replies.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 17:45
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Nope, the keeper received a NTK
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mercury2
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 21:31
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,118



Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 21:35
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



Still needs editing. Keeper received NtK, Driver allegedly parked car and left site
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2015
post Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 10:07
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: 9 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,209



I won a popla appeal on the same very issue - they failed to provide any evidence as to the driver leaving the site, nor of the layout of the site that showed the property boundaries that the driver was said to have left.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 10:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You haven't said why MET has made this allegation but it has been known to issue Parking Notices after it's operative has walked into a restaurant, asked "Who owns vehicle ******* and not received a reply.

What's usually a killer point at POPLA is to include a request that MET produces its contract for the specific restaurant because it's well-known that many restaurants are franchises and not owned by McD
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2015
post Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 08:49
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: 9 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,209



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 10:53) *
You haven't said why MET has made this allegation but it has been known to issue Parking Notices after it's operative has walked into a restaurant, asked "Who owns vehicle ******* and not received a reply.

What's usually a killer point at POPLA is to include a request that MET produces its contract for the specific restaurant because it's well-known that many restaurants are franchises and not owned by McD



The way it's written and judging by the picture, it looks like a cctv camera was watching rather than someone coming round and asking the question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mercury2
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 02:38
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,118



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 10:53) *
You haven't said why MET has made this allegation but it has been known to issue Parking Notices after it's operative has walked into a restaurant, asked "Who owns vehicle ******* and not received a reply.

What's usually a killer point at POPLA is to include a request that MET produces its contract for the specific restaurant because it's well-known that many restaurants are franchises and not owned by McD



QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 08:49) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 10:53) *
You haven't said why MET has made this allegation but it has been known to issue Parking Notices after it's operative has walked into a restaurant, asked "Who owns vehicle ******* and not received a reply.

What's usually a killer point at POPLA is to include a request that MET produces its contract for the specific restaurant because it's well-known that many restaurants are franchises and not owned by McD



The way it's written and judging by the picture, it looks like a cctv camera was watching rather than someone coming round and asking the question.






Thank you for the replies. It was caught on CCTV, pictures show one occupant leaving the site, and one occupant remaining in the car on site. Pictures show food being carried from the restaurant back to the car.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mercury2
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 02:57
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,118



I have received a reply re the appeal, and they have rejected it, and issued a popla code angry.gif

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge notice. After careful consideration we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the car park is for the use of McDonald's customers while they are on the premises only. Your vehicle was recorded as being left in the car park while the occupants left the premises therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
Turning to the points you raised in your email:
We believe we may process the data as it is necessary for pursuing our legitimate interests in seeking payment of the outstanding charge notice revenue due to us.
This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:
1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £50 within 14 days of today’s date. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will revert to £100.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code:


They just ignored my grounds for appeal, and the fact that the driver was in the car excl.gif

Do I now immediately appeal to popla?

Thank you

This post has been edited by mercury2: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 03:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:15
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



I get the feeling that you didn't appeal with the suggested letters in #3 or #4 What did you appeal with?

Yes you now appeal to POFA as the keeper. The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.

Post up here for critique before you send.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mercury2
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:40
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,118



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I get the feeling that you didn't appeal with the suggested letters in #3 or #4 What did you appeal with?

Yes you now appeal to POFA as the keeper. The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.

Post up here for critique before you send.


Thank you for your reply,

I appealed using the letter suggested by yourself (much appreciated!), pretty much word for word. That’s why I am upset that they basically just completely ignored it, and didn’t even acknowledge the point sad.gif . Going to get on copying the pictures, will write a draft and post on here.

Many thanks for all your advice, ostell
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:39
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Pretty easy appeal
Tehy dont even allege the driver left site
No occupant can possibly be bound by a contract except the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 11:06
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



QUOTE (mercury2 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:40) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I get the feeling that you didn't appeal with the suggested letters in #3 or #4 What did you appeal with?

Yes you now appeal to POFA as the keeper. The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.

Post up here for critique before you send.


Thank you for your reply,

I appealed using the letter suggested by yourself (much appreciated!), pretty much word for word. That’s why I am upset that they basically just completely ignored it, and didn’t even acknowledge the point sad.gif . Going to get on copying the pictures, will write a draft and post on here.

Many thanks for all your advice, ostell



You are misunderstanding the relationship between yourself and the parking company. They are not an equitable body in this "contract".

You are their prey.

They will not be nice to you. They will not let you off, even if you are reasonable and have a good excuse. Remember - you are to be preyed upon. Now though they have rejected the appeal as everyone knows they will this is no surprise... now they have given you a POPLA code.

That costs them money - not much but some. So you get even by drafting a good POPLA defence and reading up around the other appeals and other similar threads. Then post up your draft appeal on here and let us poke and prod it and improve it and suggest bits to tweak....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 18:40
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (mercury2 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:40) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I get the feeling that you didn't appeal with the suggested letters in #3 or #4 What did you appeal with?

Yes you now appeal to POFA as the keeper. The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.

Post up here for critique before you send.


Thank you for your reply,

I appealed using the letter suggested by yourself (much appreciated!), pretty much word for word. That’s why I am upset that they basically just completely ignored it, and didn’t even acknowledge the point sad.gif . Going to get on copying the pictures, will write a draft and post on here.


I am amazed you were not expecting a rejection letter and POPLA code.

If you read any other MET threads on here or on MSE forum (where the POPLA templates are in the NEWBIES thread) you would have been expecting your POPLA code. They don;t care about your appeal!

This one is easy to win - you would win at POPLA with one sentence. but I don't recommend it. Use the usual template stuff you see on any other MET POPLA thread on either forum, from 2018, and start with what ostell said, not giving away who the driver was:

QUOTE
The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mercury2
post Sun, 30 Dec 2018 - 21:31
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,118



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I get the feeling that you didn't appeal with the suggested letters in #3 or #4 What did you appeal with?

Yes you now appeal to POFA as the keeper. The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.

Post up here for critique before you send.



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:39) *
Pretty easy appeal
Tehy dont even allege the driver left site
No occupant can possibly be bound by a contract except the driver.










QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 11:06) *
QUOTE (mercury2 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:40) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I get the feeling that you didn't appeal with the suggested letters in #3 or #4 What did you appeal with?

Yes you now appeal to POFA as the keeper. The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.

Post up here for critique before you send.


Thank you for your reply,

I appealed using the letter suggested by yourself (much appreciated!), pretty much word for word. That’s why I am upset that they basically just completely ignored it, and didn’t even acknowledge the point sad.gif . Going to get on copying the pictures, will write a draft and post on here.

Many thanks for all your advice, ostell



You are misunderstanding the relationship between yourself and the parking company. They are not an equitable body in this "contract".

You are their prey.

They will not be nice to you. They will not let you off, even if you are reasonable and have a good excuse. Remember - you are to be preyed upon. Now though they have rejected the appeal as everyone knows they will this is no surprise... now they have given you a POPLA code.

That costs them money - not much but some. So you get even by drafting a good POPLA defence and reading up around the other appeals and other similar threads. Then post up your draft appeal on here and let us poke and prod it and improve it and suggest bits to tweak....



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (mercury2 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:40) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:15) *
I get the feeling that you didn't appeal with the suggested letters in #3 or #4 What did you appeal with?

Yes you now appeal to POFA as the keeper. The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.

Post up here for critique before you send.


Thank you for your reply,

I appealed using the letter suggested by yourself (much appreciated!), pretty much word for word. That’s why I am upset that they basically just completely ignored it, and didn’t even acknowledge the point sad.gif . Going to get on copying the pictures, will write a draft and post on here.


I am amazed you were not expecting a rejection letter and POPLA code.

If you read any other MET threads on here or on MSE forum (where the POPLA templates are in the NEWBIES thread) you would have been expecting your POPLA code. They don;t care about your appeal!

This one is easy to win - you would win at POPLA with one sentence. but I don't recommend it. Use the usual template stuff you see on any other MET POPLA thread on either forum, from 2018, and start with what ostell said, not giving away who the driver was:

QUOTE
The points for appeal are the late delivery contrary to 9 (4), failure to warn the keeper of their potential liability contrary to 9 (2) (f), no period of parking contrary to 9 (2) (a) and any others that you can find. You can then point out that one of the passengers in the car left to the car to get food, as shown by their own photographic evidence, with the driver remaining in the car and therefore no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking. (Get a copy of that passenger returning now so you can use it). You use other as the person appealing and send your appeal as a PDF attachment so that it is nicely formatted.






Hi again,

I've written my draft POPLA appeal, and was hoping you guys could take a look and let me know if anything needs changing?
Many thanks,
Mercury.



POPLA Verification Code: xxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxx

On the 26th November 2018, MET Parking Services Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself as keeper of the vehicle (please see attached) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been observed 'parked in an apparent breach of the terms and conditions' at the car park of McDonalds Southall. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.
As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
1)The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not PoFA compliant - MET Parking Service's own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on the 3rd of October 2018, but they did not issue the PCN until the 26th November 2018, over a month later.
2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
3)There was no breach by the driver of the parking conditions of parking
Please see below for details.

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the PoFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. MET Parking Services have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
''The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’
The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’
The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 54 days after the alleged event - see the attached PDF from MET Parking Services with the ‘Date of contravention’ of the 3rd October 2018 and the issue date of the 26th November 2018 (over one full month later).
By failing to serve the NTK on time, the operator has disregarded the requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I, the keeper, cannot be held liable for this charge, because the mandatory parking charge documents were not given in compliance with Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012.

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
PoFA 2012 section 4 paragraph 9(2)states that the notice must:
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
At no point have MET Parking Services provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

3) On the date of the alleged contravention, the driver remained in the car whilst parked, and the passanger left the car and purchased food from the McDonalds restaurant. Evidence of this can be seen from the still CCTV images provided by MET Parking services, which show the passanger returning to the car with food purchased from inside the restaurant (please see below) . Therefore there has been no breach by the driver of the conditions of parking.

I have contested this with MET Parking Services with regards to their PCN reference xxxxxx , but they have written to me (11th December 2018) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference xxxxxx .
I sincerely hope you are able to help me.
Many thanks,
[Name]


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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:37
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here