McDonalds Gatwick - MET - Failure to validate ticket, Driver used drive-thru before parking. Options

[johnny2b4]

First of all thank you for existing and all the hard work you do helping people with their PCN's.

I gracefully ask of the forums assistance in handling a parking charge notice delivered to the keeper of the vehicle and stating the "Driver" is liable.

On the date in the early hours mentioned the driver purchased food via the drive-thru. They then proceeded to find a parking area and used the onsite parking.

Once finished the driver left the site staying on site no longer than 20/30 minutes.

-------->Notice images<------

Is it enough and am I correct that from those letters the keeper can file an appeal subject to the notice not including the requirements of 9 (2) (f)?

CODE

9 (2) (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;

Many thanks for your help.

This post has been edited by johnny2b4: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 16:35

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

AFAIK MET still don't use keeper liability. But post up the redacted PCN if you're not sure.

[johnny2b4]

Thanks for the reply Jlc.

I posted a link in the first post with images of the received notice "Notice images".

Sorry it doesn't stand out particularly well I will do an edit of the link if I can

[Jlc]

Ah, got it... Yup, no keeper liability...

[johnny2b4]

Thanks Jlc. Is the below sufficient reply for the registered keeper to put on the MET appeal page?

CODE

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 give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) 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.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours
RK

This post has been edited by johnny2b4: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 17:55

[ostell]

You've confused that. It is the warning to keeper, 9 (2) (f) not the invitation.

You have also failure to deliver within 14 days, 9 (4). The notice was sent 1st November, a Friday so assumed delivered 2 WORKING days later, Tuesday 5th November. Definitely more than 14 days from the 19th October.

Combine the two.

[johnny2b4]

Point well presented ostell. And the additional point thank you very much.

CODE

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;

Failure to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act.

Failure to warn the keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) 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.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours
RK

[ostell]

That should do the trick. Met might even cancel by their own volition but POPLA should cancel

[johnny2b4]

Thanks ostell. The keeper submitted yesterday evening, just have to wait for the response now. I will keep you guys updated. Thanks for your help.

[johnny2b4]

Hi everyone,

Luckily MET have been super quick to reply most likely because they didn't even read the registered keepers appeal as you can see with their response in the attached documents.

Does the POPLA letter require a significant amount more of info. I have seen some written referencing previous cases and such.

Thanks

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[nosferatu1001]

Your POPLA appeal should be a few pages of appeal.
Do your research on it. Dont just copy and paste, read and ensure it is relevant.

[johnny2b4]

OK thank you. I will take a look at what I can find.

[johnny2b4]

Hi folks, please could someone kindly look over my POPLA draft attached?

This post has been edited by johnny2b4: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 16:01

Attached File(s)

 draft1.pdf ( 335.45K ) Number of downloads: 24

 

[johnny2b4]

A little update for you all and thanks for your pointer's. The registered keeper submitted their appeal to POPLA, yesterday the registered keeper received the following:

CODE

Dear "Registered Keeper"

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXX.

MET Parking Services - EW have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

[ostell]

That's Good. Normally Met just throw in the towel at the first appeal. they must be getting brave

[johnny2b4]

Yes ostell thank you.

Their repsonse to the initial appeal you would be excused to think that they didn't even bother reading it given that their argument was about signage being clear although the appeal submitted to them was about them not complying with POFA.

Thank you all.