DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54048--------------------------------------------------
MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked within
time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: January 19, 2025, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Driver parked at Krispy Kreme Donuts in New Malden at around
11.55pm. Driver went to go to the store but it was closed. The
signage says for customer use only and parking time limited to
90 mins. Driver exited 40 minutes later - problems starting the
car. The car is no longer in existence as it had to be scrapped.
MET are saying that there was a contravention as the driver was
not a 'customer' as the store was closed.
This surely depends on the meaning of the term 'customer' which
is not stated on the signage. Driver intended to make a
purchase from the store, found it closed, exited the car park 40
mins later after evenutally managing to start the car so was
both a 'customer' and within the 90 minute limit.
POPLA appeal was refused.
Debt collector's letter received, but if the debt is disputed
how can they pass to a debt collector?
Driver would be happy to fight this in court as this argumeant
hinges on the definition of 'customer'. Any advice on how to
respond to the debt collector?
#Post#: 54051--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: January 19, 2025, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Read this and then show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK) making
sure that all dates and times remain visible. Also show us
exactly what you put in our appeals.
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
We do not need to see any useless debt collector letters. You
can safely ignore those
#Post#: 54054--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: January 19, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attachments added
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 54136--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to read that NtK. Please post a better image of
it.
You haven't shown us the operators response/evidence pack but
you have shown us your response to it. Where is the operators
evidence pack?
#Post#: 54138--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 20, 2025, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Please post a better image of it.
>
--- End Quote ---
It may be easier to get a better resolution image using a third
party site like Imgur - there's a guide to this in the 'Read
this First' thread b789 linked to above.
#Post#: 54144--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are some observations on the POPLA appeal:
Good Points:
[indent]1. Signage Focus: The appeal highlights that the signage
does not explicitly state that the car park is limited to times
when the store is open. This remains the core strength of the
argument since it challenges the enforceability of any implied
term not stated clearly on the sign.
2. Time Limit Observance: The driver stayed under 40 minutes,
well within the 90-minute maximum. This directly disputes the
claim of a contravention.
3. Definition of 'Customer': The driver entered the car park
intending to purchase donuts, which reasonably qualifies them as
a customer. The signage does not define "customer" or impose
conditions based on store operating hours.
4. Terms and Conditions Clarity: The appeal correctly points out
that the signage fails to specify restrictions related to time
or store operations and does not provide a complete or
discernible list of terms.[/indent]
Irrelevant or Weak Points:
[indent]1. Mechanical Problems: While this explains the duration
of the stay, it is unnecessary since the driver was within the
90-minute limit. It might be interpreted as an attempt to
justify a delay, which is not relevant to the primary arguments.
2. Over-Reliance on Intention: While the intent to make a
purchase strengthens the "customer" argument, it could be
undermined if MET argues that parking use was invalid when no
transaction occurred. Focusing on the signage’s lack of
definition for "customer" is a more robust approach.[/indent]
Additional Observations:
[indent]• The phrase "Terms and conditions apply at all times"
could potentially imply parking rules remain in effect
regardless of store hours. However, this phrase does not
explicitly limit use to specific times or activities, leaving
room for interpretation.
• If the rest of the sign is not clearly discernible, this could
further support the argument that any alleged restrictions were
not adequately communicated.[/indent]
The appeal remains solid overall, with the strongest focus being
the signage's lack of specificity and the driver’s compliance
with the visible terms. Nothing much you can do now but wait for
the decision. If your appeal is not upheld, it is not binding on
you and you should fight this all the way to a court claim.
#Post#: 54148--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: January 20, 2025, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much, that is very helpful. I will definitely
fight this all the way to court.
#Post#: 54232--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: January 20, 2025, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/pe6BQ4j
Images may be better now with this link
#Post#: 54237--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jengie link ---
>
>
HTML https://imgur.com/a/pe6BQ4j
>
> Images may be better now with this link
>
--- End Quote ---
Nope. You need to take a higher resolution photo of it.
#Post#: 54334--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: January 21, 2025, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/jQxgtGU
My apologies, are these pictures better?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 8
DIR Next Page