MET Parking, McDonalds - POPLA appeal rejection appears at odds with evidence Options

[Bill Smith]

Allegedly overstayed in McDonalds car park by 22 mins (paying customer), £100 fine received from MET Parking. Appealed to MET Parking, rejected.

I appealed to POPLA on the grounds that the timed photo supplied by MET Parking, which is the sole evidence on which they base their claim, could not be trusted as evidence as it is a cropped black and white photograph of the numberplate, and is not satisfactory evidence showing my car leaving the car park at this time. They claim it is a photo of my rear numberplate, but it could just as easily be a photograph of my front numberplate showing my arrival - the photo is cropped so tightly you cannot see either way.

MET Parking stated in their rebutal

"The number plates images are not in colour ... because they are taken using an infrared lens. This is done to ensure vehicle registration marks remain visible in dark conditions."

(The alleged breach took place at 11:30am in August, it was not dark!)

POPLA have stated (confusingly worded):

"There is no evidence that the registration number is not the appellant’s rear number plate."

But by virtue of this comment, clearly there is also no evidence that it IS the rear number plate? In my opinion, the claim cannot be valid because MET Parking cannot prove that this is a photo of my rear numberplate, and have offered no evidence to prove it is a photo of my rear numberplate, and POPLA - in a roundabout way - have acknowledged that it cannot be proved either way.

However POPLA have still rejected the appeal.

I am sure in any court, this evidence would be thrown out as MET Parking simply cannot prove that this photo demonstrates a breach, but MET and POPLA have rejected my appeals (McDonalds have long washed their hands of it) and I don't know where to go next?

Thx
Bill.

This post has been edited by Bill Smith: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 20:09

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Nowhere as MET don't currently issue court claims. But they do have 6 years to do so.

I am sure in any court, this evidence would be thrown out as MET Parking simply cannot prove that this photo demonstrates a breach

In a civil court it's on the balance of probabilities so your assertion isn't strong...

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 20:39

[Bill Smith]

In a civil court it's on the balance of probabilities so your assertion isn't strong...

Interesting, thanks.

Is it worth going back to POPLA - I note they say that an appeal is final unless a "procedural error has been made during the assessment of your appeal"

I would consider failing to assess the evidence correctly might constitute a procedural error?

I also drew attention to the fact that the rejection of the appeal from MET Parking took 31 days to arrive, when their own T&C's say it will be within 30 days - POPLA didn't even refer to this in their summing up, again a procedural error?

It just feels so wrong that there is nowhere for me to turn now, despite there being no evidence of my committing a breach - what a scam!

I also don't want to part with a penny of my money to these cowboys, but I don't want 6 years of "maybe" hanging around, so I might just pay it.

Bill.

[Jlc]

Seriously don’t pay it!

[Tazmaina69]

Why would you want to give these scammers a penny? I could take a picture of your car number plate passing my house then send you a invoice to pay me £100 because I put up a sign... would you pay me?
Yes there is a bit of time and effort to put in...I have for over 2 years but the people on here will help & advise.

[nosferatu1001]

No, MET taking 31 days isnt a fault of POPLA ie it isnt POPLAs procedure that failed.

You need to identify that POPLA failed in some way. Do so clearly and succinctly and you have a chance.