Thread: almost 5 hour stay in a McDonalds (MET Parking) carpark? get real!

So, a family member has received an "IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE" from MET Parking, claiming that she contravened parking rules at our local McDonalds, by staying in the car park for 260 minutes.

Now this is laughable - What actually happened was that at 16:41 (according to the camera screenshot), they entered the car park on the way back from a hospital visit, with her daughter, who wanted McDonalds. They drove through, ordered, and left, presumably within a few minutes, without actually parking.

Later that evening, the mum and her husband enjoyed a meal out (not McDonalds) to celebrate their anniversary, before returning to McDonalds to pick up a McDonalds on request for their younger son who obviously didn't want to miss out on the McDonald's his older sister had earlier that day. Again, this was drive through, in and out, without parking, and left at 21:01 (again, according to the "legal" notice).

This doesn't appear to be an issue with returning to the car park before an alloted amount of time either - although i can imagine they would probably also try to charge you for that if you a) forgot something in your original order or b) they made a mistake in the original order but that's another matter entirely - This is specifically that they were supposedly in the car park for 260 minutes, which is more than the 75 minutes you're allowed.

Now, there are 3 things about this that made me laugh:

1) The box containing the date and time of the vehicle entering the site isn't actually filled in - it says dd/MM/yyyy and TIME: with no actual values entered, but you CAN make it out in the image itself.

2) I highly doubt this is "legal" in the sense that they do not actually possess any policing powers like wardens do, and they appear to be charging her a fee for breaking a contract that has been "entered into" against the driver's knowledge? That doesn't sound very legal to me.

3) They are requesting evidence to back up any challenge we attempt to make - Not sure if they "booked" a table at the restaurant they had their meal at, or whether it was just a walk in, but it's not going to be very easy to prove that they were elsewhere during those 260 minutes other than requesting CCTV footage of either the McDonald's car park or surrounding CCTVs from the local council?

However, I'm sure MET Parking will have this evidence already in their own archive, but I doubt they'll be very willing to look themselves or perform it without a huge charge, whereas I'm sure they would need to do this anyway if they took it to court to prove they remained in the car park for the length of time they claim.


Having read a few initial posts on the web, i can't find any examples of this kind of issue - they always seem to have been by people who actually did overstay, but are fighting the legality of it - Whereas we're fighting because they WEREN'T there for the length they claim.

I know advice in the former cases have always been to ignore them until they go away, but I know that the person who is being threatened isn't going to take much bullying before they pay just to get them to stop sending letters.

However, I've convinced them that I'll do some research and see if I can put something together that they can send to, and fight this. Plus, I would rather correspond with MET and try to fight it than ignore it because it's more fun for me

I gather McDonald's themselves tend to ignore pleas from customers who are fighting MET...Worth me getting my local newspaper involved, or Citizens Advice Bureau? I want something to help ease the mind of the person involved because I know they would crack under pressure. Ideally it would be great to write such a strongly worded letter that it would be enough to stop the initial begging letters stone dead, and get straight to the matter of taking it to court.

Similar Threads:

• MET Parking Charge Notice Mcdonalds Stansted
• Parking Ticket while at McDonalds Drive Thru
• Parking at McDonalds
• parking ticket in work carpark!
• EXCEL PARKING - McDonalds

don't bother with MET. this is a PPC [problem]. it is amazing how many PPC car parks with CCTV 'mis-count' double visits. Excel ones do this as well which is very strange as the ANPR company they use is also part of the Excel group. or maybe thats why they do 'mis-count' ?? You owe nothing, there is no fine. Even if your has stayed there for 260 minutes they would still be entitled to nothing. never engage with a PPC. Some bite back options here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...blems+ppc+face and here FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned copy your MP and local councillor, McD's HQ, local press, tell the neighbours. the paper they have given, and the letters they will write in future, is trash - but probably incriminating trash. Incriminating MET not you.

Andy,
MET Parking Services are complete idiots, the whole thing is a [problem], I've ignored my ticket which was for using McDonalds at Stansted twice within 16 minutes which apparantly is prohibited (ie no returns within 90 minutes).

Just a quick question if they operate a 'no return within 90 minutes policy', do McDonalds know this because if so they would have to be pretty stupid to agree with it and not want customers coming back either to buy something else or correct a mistake.

Mossy

They probably aren't aware. It's just a way for Met to try and issue more tickets.

I'm not one to back down when I know someone is in the right, so I drafted a letter for the victim to send:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your parking charge Notice issued 05/01/2009, Reference XXXXXXXX

I write regarding the above pcn that I received on Friday 8th January 2009 concerning an alleged parking contravention that occurred at XXX, McDonald's, XXXXXXXX on Saturday 6th December 2008. In summary, you allege that I remained on site for 260 minutes, overstaying the 75 minute free period allowance.

I welcome the chance to defend myself in this matter, and would ask that you consider looking into the system that computes this figure, as a matter of urgency, as I believe the figure has been created in error.

While I can confirm that I entered the site at the time shown in the first supplied image, and exited at the time in the second supplied image, what the system has failed to identify is that they are a combination of two separate visits that occurred that day.

I arrived at 16:41 on my first visit, as shown in the first picture, entered the drive through lane and subsequently left the site a few minutes later after completing my order. My vehicle would not have been stationary at any point other than in the queue that I can imagine would have been present at that time, and while waiting outside of the delivery booth for my order to be handed over.

My second visit occurred later that evening, arriving shortly before the time given in the second picture, 21:01, entered the drive through lane, queued, completed my order and subsequently left at the time stated in the second image, at 21:01.

I cannot provide evidence of these actions as I do not record CCTV footage of my daily life, and did not consider that I would need to keep the two receipts as proof of my schedule on that day.

However, I believe you can confirm this yourself by reviewing your own video footage that you obtained the photographic evidence from, and confirming that:

1)I did not, at any time, park in any parking bays on site, for any duration of time, during the 260 minutes I was alleged to have been on site, and that;

2)I had actually exited the site within the free stay period on both periods, and having not returned for a few hours, would also not have been in contravention of any "return to site" limit that you may also have in place on this site. However, I doubt this is relevant given that the penalty charge is for overstaying rather than returning to the site.

Therefore, save for you supplying me with further evidence to the contrary against my own statement regarding the alleged parking contravention at XX- McDonald's, XXXXXXXX, or to provide confirmation that you are dropping this matter, I insist that you cease and desist correspondence with me.

In the event that you are able to provide me with some sort of proof that you have looked into the matter and that you can prove categorically that events did NOT occur as I have stated, then I will take further legal advice on the actual legality of the penalty charge, which I believe many others have deputed in the past, and respond accordingly in a timely manner.

Any other correspondence from you that ignores the cease and desist request, such as repeated demands for ever increasing alleged debts, or repeating allegations against me without substantiating them with further evidence, may result in a complaint to the authorities under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, and I reserve the right to forward this and future correspondence between us to Watchdog, other Consumer Advice groups, the Citizens Advice Bureau, local newspapers, McDonalds Headquarters, both my local MP and the MP for the ward in which this site is located, and any other organisation or individual that I believe is relevant.

I look forward to you promptly investigating this matter, and expect a confirmation of the matter being dropped, as I fully believe that this is an oversight caused by a computer bug, and can accept that mistakes do happen.

Yours Sincerely,

XXXXX XXXX

I'd suggested she send this via recorded or special delivery,expecting that they would probably just ignore the letter, and had planned to follow up this letter with further letters on a regular basis, and start charging them ever increasing fees for undue stress, and administrative charges, etc, for each subsequent letter I had to write, which I would then threaten court action for if they didn't pay.

As it happens, I didn't need to:

Dear XXXXXXXX

parking charge Notice: XXXXXXXXXX - Date of Issue 05/01/2009

Thank you for your letter, received 15 January 2009, in which you raised concerns about the issuing of the above Parking Charge Notice.

On this occasion your representation has been accepted and we have cancelled this Parking Charge.

It follows that the Charge is no longer due.

Yours faithfully

MET Parking Services Limited
Enforcement Department

So, whether they actually looked at the video footage or just accepted our representation I don't know, but it proved a point

Well I'm glad you didn't bother sending the letter because that would have been 63p for Recorded Delivery you would never had seen again.

Pretty amazed at Met. Two reasons:

• they know they messed up and thought they wouldn't bother wsting time on more letters on this occasion.
• they look on the forums and realise that the odd 'appeal accepted' encourages other victims to contact them, which is what they want. PPCs hate people who never respond to letters.

I think you've had a lucky break this time, but I really advocate never ever responding to any of these companies.

Originally Posted by Al27

I think you've had a lucky break this time, but I really advocate never ever responding to any of these companies.

Depends - most of the posts on here start by saying that they did actually commit the "offence" that the pcn claims, whereas we hadn't.

I'm not disputing that these people can still legally defend themselves against a PCN notice because of the fact they aren't legal charges, but in this case, they were clearly in the wrong, so it was an entirely different type of argument.

In other circumstances, e.g. if I had actually done what they'd said I'd done, I would just ignore it and let it go away.

But as I said, this wasn't about me, it was about the victim, who I know is susceptible to bullying tactics, regardless of how many times I told her she could ignore it, hence my "aggressive" letter back to help put her mind at ease.

Originally Posted by Al27

Well I'm glad you didn't bother sending the letter because that would have been 63p for Recorded Delivery you would never had seen again.

And this isn't the point - it would have been the principle of taking them to court over the admin charges (the cost of writing and posting the letter, including time spent to write it) and compensation for undue stress they were causing by not resolving it. Not to mention any legal fees incurred by me putting it in front of a solicitor. MET wouldn't think the charges were just and would probably just ignore me, and wait for me to go away, but I reckon the case would have held up in court, and I would have been willing to take it there for a laugh just to give them a bullying of their own and make myself a pain in the arse to them.

But, as I say, they backed down after the first letter. Which I guess was better for all concerned.

Well we got the resulted we wanted, which is the main thing!

Just bear in mind that Met never take anyone to court anyway and that a 'wrongly issued' invoice is of no concern in the vast majority of these companies. 'They were clearly in the wrong' applies most of the time.

Originally Posted by Honest Brian

Unfortunately the system doesn't always work correctly, but you still need to pay.

troll

ANPR/visit 'timing errors' extremely common on planet PPC (e.g. Excel love them !). Strange that isn't it.

Originally Posted by Honest Brian
Unfortunately the system doesn't always work correctly, but you still need to pay.

does that comment really say "the PPC f**ed up but you should still give them money anyway" ?????

Wow, even for a troll comment, that will take some beating!!