MET Parking Charge Notice - Declaration of Driver

[ericsbrother]

South Hayes is in england so english law applies regardless of where you live

 

. Whay they are saying is that the POFA allows them to pursue you, the keeper, for the debt if certain conditions are met as they dont know who the driver was at the time.

the reverse of this is they cannot pursue the keeper if they dont meet those conditions and they have admitted they dont know who the driver was so them they would be stuck and that is why they are asking, so they have someone to chase.

 

Tell us the date of the event and the date you got the demand through the post and we will take it from there

 

. It would be useful to be able to read their letter as the wording has to be very precise to fulfil the relevant parts to create keeper liability

and most cant even copy out what is written down in the Act, despite their living depending upon it.

 

Dont respond at all until we have the answers to the times and dates and have seen their letter. there will be othr things they have got wrong but lets stick to this for the moment.

[ericsbrother]

OK they say that the vehicle stayed longer than authorised or without authorisation. this makes it a matter of trespass then and nothing to do with them.

 

To be certain, it would be best if we could see the signage in the car park but as that measn travelling all the way to the other end of the country I would suggest that firstly you contact MaccyD's and give them an absolute ear bashing over this and point out that more than an hour is needed to drink their scaldingly hot coffee and why do they want to make you give up going there ever again. get that complaint in pronto and in writing as they ahve the power to cancel this claim.

 

Also point out that you doubt if MET have planning permission for their signage and you will be seeking Maccy D's to be punished for this as well as MET as a criminal offence and will be taking that up with the local council as soon as you hear back from them about this (probably illegal) charge.

 

If you dont get a response from McD within the next 3 weeks submit an appeal to MET without saying who was driving and say that you do not beleive they have the authority to offer and enter into contracts at that place and require strict proof of the assignment of this right and the necessary permissions regarding signage.

Edited July 26, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[ericsbrother]

I would now ask Maccy D's if they ahve assiganed the right to the parking co to allow them to enter into contracts with their customers

[ericsbrother]

no,

the reason I say have another go at MaccyD's is that all of their branches operate on a franchise system so the reality is that they are not even a third party to the agreement between the parking co and McD

 

 

and if someone who doesnt even lease the site dictates how you interact with the tenant of that land it falls foul of the unfair trading terms regs as McD and the parking co have no interest in the land at all, either as agents or tenants and if they force the franchisee to follow a certain order that is not a contractual matter for you and them to consider.

 

 

All a bit long winded and I bet they dont respond

(as it would kill them to admit they dont ahve the right to enforce an agreement on other parties)

but it will show that you did try and resolve this and any court action is not down to your actions.

 

You could mention it in your request that you belive that this is a franchise

so how come a fourth and fifth party are creating contracts that they expect you

and others not covered by them to agree to them?

[ericsbrother]

it means that they either own or lease the land, if it comes to a clourt claim then you can look up the ownership on the land registry for £3 and if they lease it then the parking co dont have a contract-simples.

[ericsbrother]

never tell them who was driving, unless that person is deceased.

 

Now, I

s mcd's real estate a subsidiary of maccyd's or the other way round or are they separate companies?

 

 

Companies house is the place to look that up

[ericsbrother]

At this point you are not fighting anything so there is no need to respond to MET's demands.

 

As for the company structure there are 2 holding companies for the land and Maccyd's as a separate trading co whose interests are vested in 2 directors who without looking the up I would presume are part of the limited liability partnership.

 

 

By running things this way we cant see what is really going on so impossible to tell if the MET contract is signed off by the right entity but generally one can assume that they can in cases like this.

 

However,

none of this changes any argument about the terms offered at the time nor does it mean that planning consent miraculously appears so i would be sitting tight and then telling them that there is no contractual obligation when they or their lawyers send a lba.

 

 

In the mean while you should get picture of the signage at the entrance to the land,

any signage on the land that is different and an idea of the size of the signs,

their hight above ground and the size of the writing.

 

 

I bet they will fail the legibility test and that is the first thing I would be telling them and keep the no planning argument for the future.

[ericsbrother]

ask the council covering the area,

you need to state that it is an enquiry about planning permission under the advertising hoardings reg of the town and country planning act 2007 so they are clear what you are on about.

 

 

the normaL CUSTOMER SERVICES PEOPLE WONT KNOW AND PROBEBLY TELL YOU THAT IT IS DEEMED CONSENT OR NOT NEEDED FOR PRIVATE LAND BUT THIS IS NOT SO.

[ericsbrother]

they are talking out of their backsides,

read the Mansfield thread and you will see the exact quotes of the legislation

and if Hillingdon are right why do other councils including Mansfield and Croydon force PE to obey the same law.

 

 

The problem is you have got a response from some untrained CS wonk who knows nothing.

Anyway the 1200x800 signs need permission regardless of what they say unless they are estate agents for sale signs.

 

As for the contents,

well the main sign is an invitation to treat because it refers to other signs offering the contract.

You are not barred from entering without accepting those unknowm conditions so you are able to reject the contract if you bother to read it.

 

 

Any parking event then becomes a matter of trespass if Maccy D's dont want you there and that is nowt to do with MET.

[ericsbrother]

you now ignore MET and dont waste any more time on this as you arent going to get a straight answer from anyone.

 

No-one is interested in helping you at the council,

they dont really care about minor planning breaches

because they dotn have the resources to do anything.

 

Maccyd's have a crooked deal with MET but no-one will sue them so they carry on destrpying their customer base and MET dont give a stuff about the law or they would be in another business.

 

You know they dont have PP so that sinks any claim.

They are knackered by the wording of their signage anyway so let them do their worst.

 

Commonly, MET do nothing so unless someone else finds a new winning argument on behalf of parking co's to break the law that is unlikely to change much

[ericsbrother]

dont ignore a N1 court claim though but expect a load of threatograms in the menawhile.