PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MET Parking Services - Southgate Park Car Park - Notice To Hirer, Fine Received
FlyingSquad
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Hi all


Summary of case below:

- The vehicle in concern is a lease car, currently on a 2 year PCH lease.

- This notice to hirer letter was sent directly to the hirer.

- The driver entered the Southgate Park Car Park near Stansted airport to go to the McDonald's on the site. There is also a Starbucks and another kebab type food outlet on the site, all within the same car park.

- There were no available car parking bays immediately outside the McDonald's premises. The car was eventually parked in the next available bay, which happened to be closer to the Starbucks than the McDonald's. That said, the McDonald's was a mere 6 meters
(footsteps) away.

- It was not obvious that the car park was split, between McDonald's and Starbucks. One would and it's fair to assume that the site fascilitated parking for all customers for either chain. There were no obvious signs the hirer could see to suggest otherwise.

- There is a 1 hour free time limit for parking and the stay in concern, did not exceed this.

- The driver did not leave the Southgate Park Premises, as this letter suggests in the alleged contravention. They remained within the grounds of the site and where the car was parked.

- The letter was received on Sat 15th September. This is 33 days from the date of issue (17th August 2018) and 66 days since the alleged contravention date (13th July 2018). Are there any grounds to challenge due to the time elapsed?

- The letter confusingly states "This charge relates to the period pf parking immediately prior to 11:07 on 13th July." This seems a rather odd and woolly way of stating the time of the alleged offense! If it's "immediately prior to 11:07", why not just state the actual time!?


A google search shows an abundance of complaints and similar cases regarding this company.

Apologies in advance if this has already been covered numerous times before, in which case, any pointers would be really appreciated. wink.gif


Many thanks in advance to anyone who can offer some assistance.

Kindest regards.



This post has been edited by FlyingSquad: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 08:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 44)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:44
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,421
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



MSE Forum -> Newbies thread - contains all instructions for POPLA

You send it using the website as a PDF attachment
Whoile there look at other appeals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 14:51
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Cheers for the heads up. Let's see what happens!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:40
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,246
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Under OTHER, on the POPLA website, uploaded as an attache PDF document and you just put in the box:

Please see my appeal as hirer attached. I am not liable due to non compliance with POFA para 14 (the driver has not been identified) and also, my appeal relies on 'no landowner authority' and 'unclear signage' due to this being ONE car park, ONE entrance and a vague sign that allows ''customers'' to park.

Are you not going to add the usual other point people have used re this car park, that there is no evidence of the driver leaving any site, and if photos were taken that show a person driving, then parking, then walking to one of the two on-site restaurants, then this is clearly intrusive use of body-worn or hand-held or CCTV cameras and pays no regard to consumer rights to privacy under the GDPR, if this operator is taking a picture of every driver as they arrive then following them silently (rather than actually signposting the car park properly in the first place).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlyingSquad
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 09:35
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,929



Great advice SchoolRunMum wink.gif , if only I had received it sooner; appeal already sent and unable to add further retrospectively. I’ll report back outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 11:32
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,246
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



OK so you can use the chance at COMMENTS stage, to point out the lack of evidence. You get one more bite at the cherry and whilst you can't add new stuff you CAN comment on the utter lack of evidence to support their case, and basically pick holes in their evidence pack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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, 15th November 2018 - 15:44
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.