Author Topic: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine (Read 3482 times)

mdar50743 · « **on:** September 07, 2024, 10:25:04 pm »

Hi everyone,

Hope if anyone can help, advise or have had any experience dealing with with MET Parking Services.

I hired a car and my local McDonald’s had a EV Charging facility. I've been going there for about
few weeks and all of a sudden been getting a 7 fines so far and probably more for charging my EV car
there for overstaying.

Could any please help and advise what can I do to appeal these fines as they are getting really unbearable.

Thank you.

https://ibb.co/RHHTcgS

b789 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 08, 2024, 05:08:55 am »

Welcome. As an EV owner for almost 5 years, I have some understanding of the issues surrounding rapid charging, especially when using Instavolt. Not the cheapest and especially if it comes with an added invoice of £100 per visit, ans in this case, although I would question why the need to rapid charge for over an hour each time.

I note that what you have shown us is a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which is addressed to the Registered Keeper (RK), Hertz, and not you, the Hirer (I presume). I will also, for now, assume that the NtK you showed us was sent to you by Hertz. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is extremely important that we get these fact correct.

Have you been in any contact with the operator, MET Parking, and if so, have you revealed the identity of the Driver? MET will only know the identity of the Driver of you, the Hirer, has told them. Hopefully, you haven’t done so. Neither Hertz nor MET know the identity of the driver and, as you can read on the NtK, it the Driver who is liable for the alleged debt.

The Driver, the Keeper and the Hirer are all separate legal entities. Whilst the Keeper/Hirer may also be the Driver, that is only known by the Keeper/Hirer. In the case of a hired vehicle, the Hire company does not know who the Driver is. There is no legal requirement for the Hirer to identify the Driver to an unregulated private parking company.

You have already, mistakenly, called these “fines”. Only an “authority” such as a council or the police can issue “fines” or “penalties” and only if an “offence” has been committed. MET are a private company and definitely not an “authority” of any kind. What they have issued is a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the Driver. Can you show a single mention of the words “fine”, “penalty” or “offence” on any of the paperwork received?

MET are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to be able to transfer liability for the charge (invoice) from the Driver, if they are unknown, to the Keeper or Hirer. That can only happen if all the requirements of PoFA have been fully complied with. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

If the driver has been identified by the Hirer, then PoFA does not apply and the Driver (now known to MET) remains liable and a “golden ticket” opportunity has been wasted. Has the Driver been identified?

Normally, a PCN for a Hire/Lease vehicle is considered a “golden ticket” as almost every PPC fails to follow all the requirements of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, and as long as they have not followed all those requirements and the Driver remains unknown, the Hirer cannot be liable for the PCN.

The most common reason that PPCs such as MET Parking fail to fully comply with all the requirements is because they fail to either issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) once liability has been transferred by the Keeper or, more likely, they fail to include copies of the documents specified in Paragraphs 13(2) of PoFA.

So, we need to establish whether you have identified the Driver. If not, have MET sent you an NtH? If they have, did they include copies of the relevant documents as required in PoFA paragraph 13(2)?

The next thing we need to establish is what the signs at the location actually say. The signs are the contract that the Driver agreed to, whether they read them or not (contract by conduct). Can you get photos of the signs at the location? We need to see an overview and some close ups of the actual signs at the EV charging bays.

If the Driver has been identified, then the best chance of getting the PCNs cancelled is if the signs are incapable of creating a valid contract with the Driver. It is much more difficult than if the Driver has not been identified.

Finally, why was the Driver charging an EV for over an hour on a Rapid Charger? Are the Instavolt chargers at the location 50kW versions or more powerful ones? Charging above 80% on a Rapid charger is a waste of time as the charge rate begins to slow dramatically in order to protect the battery. As the Polestar has an ultra rapid charging capability of at least 150kW (205kW if it’s a Polestar 2), it would be advisable to seek out ultra rapid chargers, especially at locations that are not infested with PPCs, and spend less time charging.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #2 on:** September 08, 2024, 08:46:40 am »

getting a 7 fines so far and probably more for charging my EV car
there for overstaying.

No, the NTK alleges:
'..exceeded the stay authorised or without authorisation'. Which begs the question: what are the conditions?

As you're local you can get current(!) photos of the signs.

Hire vehicle cases are the most complex because they involve not just 'parking' law but also contract law as between hirer and lease company and relationships. Then throw in that most lease companies don't know the procedures and PPCs who if they do know them don't follow them!

Do you still have the car on hire? Short-term or lease?
If your relationship is ongoing, then you probably do not want binary outcomes i.e. the hire company pay or you pay. But getting a third option is probably not in your hands.

As it stands you can do nothing as regards the NTK because it's not yours and unless Hertz have authorised you in writing to make reps on their behalf then you don't feature in the process.

I suggest your priorities are:
Amend your posts to remove any suggestion as to the identity of the driver;
Tell us and post whatever correspondence accompanied the NTK from Hertz;
Get and post photos of the signs.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 08, 2024, 09:48:49 am »

You might be beyond the deadline to amend your own post - if you are, send me a direct message with what you want the post to say, and I can edit it for you.

slapdash · « **Reply #4 on:** September 08, 2024, 11:56:53 am »

https://imgur.com/a/tD3WPJE

The above image is from the charging app I use.

Irrespective of other restrictions posted a reasonable person might conclude that the conditions on the sign next to the charger might be the relevant ones.

They are only 60kw, over an hour must be fairly common. Fairly trappy arrangement.

Btw Tesla Superchargers are often open to non Tesla EV. Download the app from the charging tab on Tesla website, also gives a write up.

Generally way cheaper, even more so off peak.

b789 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 08, 2024, 12:26:31 pm »

Interesting that the little yellow sign next to the charger says "No Parking At Any Time". If so, then charging cannot be considered "parking".

Given that the bay is specifically designated for charging only and has a "No Parking" sign, you have a strong basis to argue that your vehicle was not "parked" but was instead engaged in the permitted activity of charging, as indicated by the bay’s intended use. MET’s issuance of a PCN for "exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation" overlooks the distinction between parking and charging.

As MET are going to reject ANY appeal, the initial appeal is only to get them to generate a POPLA code. It is at POPLA where you are likely to have the PCN cancelled.

Besides the PoFA argument that the Hirer cannot be liable, you can also point out why the driver cannot be liable. Here are some key points you can raise in the appeal:

Charging, not Parking: Emphasise that the vehicle was in the bay for the specific purpose of charging, not parking. The "No Parking" sign makes it clear that the bay is for charging only, and the vehicle was compliant with this requirement.

No Clear Stay Limits for Charging: If there is no clear signage outlining how long an EV can remain while charging, the terms would be ambiguous. If the car park imposes a general stay limit but does not address the unique nature of charging, this lack of clarity would make the charge unfair.

Reasonableness of Charging Time: Argue that the time spent charging was necessary for the vehicle to recharge adequately. If the car park allows charging but does not provide enough time for a full or reasonable charge, this could be considered an unreasonable restriction.

Lack of Contradiction in Signage: Since the bay is marked with "No Parking" but allows charging, the signage suggests that the activity you were engaged in (charging) is permissible, and the penalty for exceeding a stay intended for parking does not apply to charging.

As we still don't know whether the Hirer has received an NtH in their own name or at least a letter of authorisation from Hertz for them to deal with it, until that point is clarified, there is little point in providing any actual appeal to use at the various stages.

mdar50743 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 09, 2024, 12:19:16 am »

Quote from: b789 on September 08, 2024, 05:08:55 am

Welcome. As an EV owner for almost 5 years, I have some understanding of the issues surrounding rapid charging, especially when using Instavolt. Not the cheapest and especially if it comes with an added invoice of £100 per visit, ans in this case, although I would question why the need to rapid charge for over an hour each time.

I note that what you have shown us is a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which is addressed to the Registered Keeper (RK), Hertz, and not you, the Hirer (I presume). I will also, for now, assume that the NtK you showed us was sent to you by Hertz. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is extremely important that we get these fact correct.

Have you been in any contact with the operator, MET Parking, and if so, have you revealed the identity of the Driver? MET will only know the identity of the Driver of you, the Hirer, has told them. Hopefully, you haven’t done so. Neither Hertz nor MET know the identity of the driver and, as you can read on the NtK, it the Driver who is liable for the alleged debt.

The Driver, the Keeper and the Hirer are all separate legal entities. Whilst the Keeper/Hirer may also be the Driver, that is only known by the Keeper/Hirer. In the case of a hired vehicle, the Hire company does not know who the Driver is. There is no legal requirement for the Hirer to identify the Driver to an unregulated private parking company.

You have already, mistakenly, called these “fines”. Only an “authority” such as a council or the police can issue “fines” or “penalties” and only if an “offence” has been committed. MET are a private company and definitely not an “authority” of any kind. What they have issued is a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the Driver. Can you show a single mention of the words “fine”, “penalty” or “offence” on any of the paperwork received?

MET are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to be able to transfer liability for the charge (invoice) from the Driver, if they are unknown, to the Keeper or Hirer. That can only happen if all the requirements of PoFA have been fully complied with. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

If the driver has been identified by the Hirer, then PoFA does not apply and the Driver (now known to MET) remains liable and a “golden ticket” opportunity has been wasted. Has the Driver been identified?

Normally, a PCN for a Hire/Lease vehicle is considered a “golden ticket” as almost every PPC fails to follow all the requirements of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, and as long as they have not followed all those requirements and the Driver remains unknown, the Hirer cannot be liable for the PCN.

The most common reason that PPCs such as MET Parking fail to fully comply with all the requirements is because they fail to either issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) once liability has been transferred by the Keeper or, more likely, they fail to include copies of the documents specified in Paragraphs 13(2) of PoFA.

So, we need to establish whether you have identified the Driver. If not, have MET sent you an NtH? If they have, did they include copies of the relevant documents as required in PoFA paragraph 13(2)?

The next thing we need to establish is what the signs at the location actually say. The signs are the contract that the Driver agreed to, whether they read them or not (contract by conduct). Can you get photos of the signs at the location? We need to see an overview and some close ups of the actual signs at the EV charging bays.

If the Driver has been identified, then the best chance of getting the PCNs cancelled is if the signs are incapable of creating a valid contract with the Driver. It is much more difficult than if the Driver has not been identified.

Finally, why was the Driver charging an EV for over an hour on a Rapid Charger? Are the Instavolt chargers at the location 50kW versions or more powerful ones? Charging above 80% on a Rapid charger is a waste of time as the charge rate begins to slow dramatically in order to protect the battery. As the Polestar has an ultra rapid charging capability of at least 150kW (205kW if it’s a Polestar 2), it would be advisable to seek out ultra rapid chargers, especially at locations that are not infested with PPCs, and spend less time charging.

I completely agree it's not the cheapest but when you're like me, someone who's never charged before, this is really the only way I found. There is another problem about this vehicle I rented - it does take a long time to charge from 25% - 100% in around 1:20 min at 120kw going down to around 9kw.

I note that what you have shown us is a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which is addressed to the Registered Keeper (RK), Hertz, and not you, the Hirer (I presume). I will also, for now, assume that the NtK you showed us was sent to you by Hertz. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is extremely important that we get these fact correct.

Just to quote from hertz email I received:

Thanks for your email, I have investigated the terms and conditions state that we will pay the fines when they are received. This is an automated process. Therefore, I can issue you with an appeal notice and you will need to appeal the ticket. If you win the appeal, we will then refund accordingly.

Please note the rental agreement you signed gives the process and you have agreed with these terms and conditions.
Please advise if you wish to go ahead and I will request the appeal notice?

I have replied: I am writing to inform you that I plan to appeal the fines associated with my rental. As such, I kindly request that any previous and future fines not be charged to my account until the appeal process is completed.

b789 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 09, 2024, 01:57:41 am »

But they aren’t “fines”. Ask them to show you the word “fine” anywhere on the NtK. They are invoices from a private company and there is no liability for Hertz to pay any invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.

If they pay the charge, there is absolutely no possibility of an appeal. Check the wording in your hire agreement. Please show us the wording. Invariably, the wording only refers to fines and penalties for offences. PCNs from unregulated private parking companies are only invoices and nothing to do with statutory law.

If Hertz pay the PCNs instead of transferring any and all liability for them from them to you, the it is money thrown away. Quote PoFA paragraph 13(2) to Herts and tell them that if they do not comply with the requirements of PoFA to transfer liability to you, the Hirer, you will not be liable for their mistake. You should note that if you withhold payment by charging back any deductions from your credit card, they will have to sue you and you would have an excellent chance of beating them.

PoFA 13(2) states:

Quote

2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

So the law specifically states that the Keeper (Hertz) cannot be liable for the charge as long as they give MET a statement that the vehicle is hired to you and they include a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of the statement of liability that you signed when you hired the vehicle. As long as they do that within 28 days of receiving the NtK, there can not be any liability for Hertz to pay the charge and MET cannot peruse them for it.

Once Hertz has done that, MET must then comply with the requirements in PoFA paragraph 14(2) if they want to hold you, the Hirer liable. If they have not complied with all the requirements, then they cannot hold you liable as the Hirer. As long as you have not identified the driver, they have nowhere else to go and either abandon the alleged debt or else try their luck in small claims court where they have zero chance, as explained above.

So, if Hertz pay the PCNs, you have zero, nada, zilch chance of appealing them. MET will be laughing all the way to the bank. There is no chance to appeal a PCN once it has been paid. Have a read of the NtK, it even says so on it.

Regarding charging an EV on a rapid charger, nobody should ever try and charge above 80%-85%. The rate of charge is just too slow. A DC charger does not balance the cells and you should only use an AC charger to charge up to 100%, usually overnight at home or an a “fast” public charger. The Polestar can AC charge at up to 11kW.

slapdash · « **Reply #8 on:** September 09, 2024, 06:25:24 am »

Within your agreement with Hertz there will be a section on "fines and charges" or somesuch.

This will detail what they can charge you, in some cases what they will charge you. They are very often silent on private parking charges. Dependant upon your agreement an argument may possibly be made that they have no contractual right to pay the charge and bill it. (There is a possibility a judge may ultimately take a more purposive view).

Although there is a legal method of transferring the charges to you this does not preclude Hertz from paying them and then charging you (if the contract allows it).

Thus if Hertz do choose to pay them you have a contractual dispute with them as to whether they were entitled to.

At the moment it is unclear whether Hertz intend to pay them and charge you or whether they intend to transfer liability to you (a process they will often get wrong anyway).

b789 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 09, 2024, 11:03:53 am »

You would also be covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) even if the hire agreement did allow Hertz to pay the PCN as it is an unfair term.

Have a read of section 62 of the Act. Also, Section 57(4) applies.

You should point out to Hertz that if they pay the PCN, thereby removing any right you have to appeal it, they are in breach of section 57(4)(c) of Chapter 4 of the CRA 2015 which states:

Quote

57 Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted

(4)That also means that a term of a contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would —

(c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy

mdar50743 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 09, 2024, 11:23:43 am »

Quote from: b789 on September 09, 2024, 11:03:53 am

You would also be covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) even if the hire agreement did allow Hertz to pay the PCN as it is an unfair term.

Have a read of section 62 of the Act. Also, Section 57(4) applies.

You should point out to Hertz that if they pay the PCN, thereby removing any right you have to appeal it, they are in breach of section 57(4)(c) of Chapter 4 of the CRA 2015 which states:

Quote
57 Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted

(4)That also means that a term of a contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would —

(c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy

Thank you everyone for your replies.

I have received a reply from Hertz. But I can't upload, it keeps saying Uploader Full? If anyone knows how to fix please advise.

https://ibb.co/7jz63GX

As Hertz have already paid for the fines, can I ask what is my course of action now?

slapdash · « **Reply #11 on:** September 09, 2024, 11:29:26 am »

I agree it is an unfair term.

The issue becomes a practical one. Are you aware of:-

- Any hire company accept the argument and either refunding or not charging.
- A credit provider acception a section 75 claim.
- An FoS decision in favour.
- A successful claim for reimbursement from the hire company via court.

The practical problem being the hire company will just take it from the credit card if they don't transfer liability (usually on the fallacious basis of "we were doing you a favour to stop it escalating"). Then they have the money and one of the remedies above will be required.

An alternative strategy might be to cancel the card to attempt to prevent collection (noting that some banking groups attempt to give themselves the right to just debit any ingroup new card).

At least this way a victim can simply wait until a claim issued and defend it.

It's a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

slapdash · « **Reply #12 on:** September 09, 2024, 11:32:17 am »

@mdar50743 Have you approached McDonalds, they may have the power to instruct MET to cancel. There was a recent occurrence where they have been receptive.

b789 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 09, 2024, 12:06:02 pm »

How have they charged you? Have they taken the money from your credit card? If so, you raise a dispute with the credit card company and they will charge back the funds while they investigate.

You also raise a dispute with Hertz that what they have paid is not and never was a "Penalty" Charge Notice. Challenge them to show you the word "Penalty" anywhere on the NtK they received. Challenge them to show you the words "fine" or "offence" too. Ask them in what way is MET parking an "authority" that can issue a "Penalty" Charge Notice.

Point out to Hertz that what was received was a "PARKING" Charge Notice. It is not a "penalty" or a "fine" from any "authority". It is simply an invoice from an UNREGULATED private parking company.

You have still not shown us the exact wording from your hire agreement that mentions parking charges. No matter what it says, by paying the PCN, Herts have removed your right to appeal and get it cancelled. They are members of the BVRLA and there are guidelines they must follow.

Use the following as a guide on how you should format your complaint to Hertz:

Quote

BVRLA guidelines for hire car companies regarding parking charges from unregulated private parking companies emphasise proper handling and transferring of liability. In situations where a hire company like Hertz mistakenly pays a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), creates significant legal issues under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

1. Transferring Liability, Not Paying the Charge:

Notice to Keeper (NtK): When the hire company receives an NtK, their responsibility under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is to transfer liability to the hirer by providing the hirer's details and relevant documents (such as a copy of the rental agreement).

The BVRLA advises that hire companies should follow this legal process and not pay the parking charge on behalf of the hirer. Paying the PCN deprives the hirer of their right to appeal, and is especially problematic if the NtK explicitly mentions that payment extinguishes the right to contest the charge.

2. Right to Appeal:

If the hire company pays the PCN and tells the hirer they can appeal for a refund, this is in complete contradiction with the NtK's terms stating that payment voids the right to appeal. This would place the hirer in an unfair position, potentially violating Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 57(4)(c) of the CRA 2015, which prevents a company from putting the consumer (hirer) at a disadvantage for pursuing their rights (in this case, the right to appeal the PCN).

3. Unfair Terms and CRA 2015 Compliance:

Any clause in a hire agreement allowing the hire company to pay a PCN without allowing the hirer a chance to appeal is deemed unfair under the CRA 2015. Section 57(4)(c) explicitly prohibits contractual terms that put a consumer at a disadvantage when exercising their rights, such as appealing a PCN.

The BVRLA guidelines advise hire companies to ensure their contracts do not contain unfair terms and to allow hirers the opportunity to exercise their appeal rights, especially when dealing with unregulated PPCs. Unregulated PPCs often issue questionable charges, which hirers may be able to contest successfully.

4. Administration Fees:

While BVRLA members may charge an administration fee for handling parking charges, they must still follow the law in transferring liability, ensuring that the hirer has the opportunity to appeal the charge before it is paid.

5. Best Practices for Dealing with Unregulated PPCs:

The BVRLA stresses that hire companies should handle parking charges from unregulated PPCs cautiously. They should follow all legal procedures to ensure that hirers are not unfairly disadvantaged.

Unregulated PPCs, whether they are part of the British Parking Association (BPA) or International Parking Community (IPC), operate outside formal regulation and their charges may be disputable. As such, hirers must be given every opportunity to challenge these charges before they are paid.

The BVRLA guidelines encourage hire companies to avoid paying PCNs on behalf of hirers and instead transfer liability correctly under PoFA. Doing otherwise violates the CRA 2015 by depriving hirers of their legal right to appeal, particularly in cases where payment precludes further contestation.

Put together a complaint to Hertz and advise them if they are still unsure of their legal position, they should pass the complaint to their legal advisors as you are not liable for their mistake and breach of your consumer rights. Please show us what you intend to send them.

The Rookie · « **Reply #14 on:** September 09, 2024, 03:24:26 pm »

In addition you could/should complain to the DVLA, your details have been requested under the 'KADOE contract' which is for PARKING CHARGES. As the sign makes clear the car wasn't 'parking' (ahem) but 'charging' the details shouldn't have been requested under that contract.

KADOE contract
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81a0c7e5274a2e8ab55036/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine (Read 3482 times)

mdar50743

PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

b789

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

H C Andersen

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

DWMB2

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

slapdash

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

b789

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

mdar50743

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

b789

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

slapdash

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

b789

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

mdar50743

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

slapdash

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

slapdash

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

b789

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine

The Rookie

Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine