DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51917--------------------------------------------------
MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 4, 2025, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there,
My wife has received a NTK due to allegedly parking at
Leytonstone McDonald’s, leaving the vehicle parked and occupants
leaving the McDonald’s premises.
Occupants did enter the restaurant and consume meals. There
appears to be no evidence of any breach except for a photo of
the parked car.
Do I have any options to appeal this charge?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 51953--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 5, 2025, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Laughable isn't it? Have you checked the MET website for any
other evidential photos they may have? The image in the Notice
to Keeper (NtK) was taken manually by an operative. If there are
other photos, please show them.
What do the signs at the location say? Photos of the signs would
be useful. Is the contract breached if the driver leaves the car
park or is it breached if a passenger leaves the car park? How
is the person leaving the car park identified?
If they were to ever try and litigate this and it was brought
before a judge, their legal representative would be advised to
bring a toothbrush with them as it is unlikely they would be
going home after the hearing. These cases are a complete waste
of court time as it is impossible to identify who has breached
any contract, assuming one has been formed in the first place.
So, please show any other evidential images that MET have on
their appeals website.
#Post#: 51983--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 5, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the quick response. I am attaching the photos from
their website.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 51984--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 5, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And more:
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 52003--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 5, 2025, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, they have no evidence to prove their allegation that
"Vehicle was left in McDonalds car park while the occupants left
McDonalds premises".
Unless you can download their photo of the sign at a higher
resolution, it impossible to see what the terms say on that
sign. Can you get your own photo of the sign?
The Keeper simply appeals with the following:
--- Quote ---
> This is a formal appeal against the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
issued by MET Parking Services regarding an alleged parking
contravention at McDonald’s Leytonstone.
>
> Your allegation is that the Keepers vehicle was parked at the
location and the occupants left the premises. However, MET has
provided zero proof that the vehicle’s occupants left the
McDonald’s site. The photographs included in your Notice to
Keeper show only a parked car, which proves nothing regarding
your allegation. Your entire claim is based on pure speculation,
and the lack of clarity in your signage further undermines any
suggestion that a contract was breached.
>
> The alleged breach appears to be based on occupants "leaving
the premises", but your NtK does not specify whether it is only
the driver who must remain on-site or whether this supposed
obligation extends to all vehicle occupants. If your claim is
that all passengers must remain on-site at all times, this is
utterly unenforceable and would be considered an unfair and
unreasonable contractual term. On the other hand, if the signage
refers only to the driver, then your claim is clearly flawed, as
you have made no attempt to identify the driver.
>
> Furthermore, given that the photographs were taken by your
operative, it is clear that they were physically present at the
time of the alleged contravention. For your operative to have
concluded that the occupants "left the site," they must have
been actively stalking the vehicle’s occupants for an extended
period.
>
> Just consider what this actually means:
>
> [indent]• Your operative saw the occupants exit the vehicle.
>
> • They waited while the occupants entered the McDonald’s
restaurant.
>
> • They continued waiting while the occupants purchased food
and consumed their meals.
>
> • They then followed the occupants after they left the
restaurant and, at some unspecified point, claimed that the
occupants left the site.[/indent]
>
> This timeline of events raises serious concerns about the
conduct of your operative. If your operative was following the
occupants around for the duration of their visit, this
constitutes targeted surveillance and harassment.
>
> If your operative genuinely believed that a breach was
imminent, they had a duty to intervene and prevent it by
informing the occupants of the alleged terms. Instead, your
operative chose to wait silently, allowing a supposed breach to
occur so that they could later issue a charge. This is a blatant
example of entrapment and undermines any legitimacy your claim
might have had.
>
> Moreover, the occupants of the vehicle did enter the
restaurant, purchased food, and consumed their meals inside. The
most plausible scenario is that your operative only began
following them after they left the restaurant and fabricated a
narrative about them "leaving the site" in an attempt to justify
issuing this charge.
>
> If MET were to try and litigate over this, it would be laughed
out of court. Any reasonable person would conclude that your
claims are vague, predatory, and completely unsupported by
evidence. MET has not clarified whether it is the driver or all
occupants who must remain on-site, your photographs prove
nothing, and your case relies entirely on speculative, unproven
stalking.
>
> Unless MET can provide clear, time-stamped evidence that the
driver and/or all occupants left the McDonald’s site immediately
upon arrival — which you cannot — this charge is doomed to fail.
If MET are foolish enough to pursue this through litigation, you
would be laughed out of court, and your unreasonable behaviour
would be dealt with accordingly.
>
> However, if you refuse to cancel this Parking Charge Notice,
you must issue a POPLA code so that your absurd claim can be
dismantled by the assessor. You have zero prospect of success at
POPLA, and your incompetence will serve as entertainment during
the appeal process.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 52007--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 5, 2025, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The above seems thorough to me. The only point I picked up on
would be the description of the operatives conduct as
"entrapment" - in the legal sense, entrapment ordinarily
involves an individual inducing someone to do something they
would not otherwise have done, to my knowledge. Waiting silently
for someone to do something and declining to intervene would not
be the same as inducing them to do it, although the point that
they could (and ought to have) intervened can still be raised.
#Post#: 52018--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 5, 2025, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for the replies, really appreciated. I’ll get the
keeper to submit the appeal when they’re back home later
tonight.
#Post#: 53655--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 16, 2025, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there, submitted the above worded appeal and have just
received a response back from the operator stating that they
conducted a site survey prior to issuing the ticket, but they've
not given any additional evidence. I've attached their letter
here. What do I do next?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 53663--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 16, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What utter male bovine excrement that appeal refusal is. I shall
pass it on to Coupon-mad over on MSE as she is on the Steering
Committee for the long awaited Private Parking (Code of
Practice) Act 2019. Any evidence of this kind of abuse and
deceptive behaviour is used to prove why the the Act must be
made live earlier rather than later.
You now have a POPLA number and 33 days from the appeal
rejection date to make the appeal. Please remind me in a few
days to put something together for you unless you want to try
something yourself and show us before you actually send it.
Can you please show us the rest of the appeal rejection and who
it is signed by.
#Post#: 53703--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 16, 2025, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this, if you could knock something up for us, I'd be
grateful. Attached is the rest of the letter. It's signed, but
the signature doesn't have a typed name and generically states
'Appeals Department'.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page