No need - if MET challenge your appeal they'll produce an evidence pack which will contain the notices.
If I were a betting man I'd wager that they'll save themselves the POPLA fee and withdraw, but you never know.
POPLA Appeal[NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)-Vs-MET Parking Services Ltd (Operator)Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
POPLA Reference Code: [POPLA REFERENCE]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]
Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from MET Parking Services (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper, following the affixing of a Notice to Driver to the vehicle windscreen. Following receipt of the supposed Notice to Keeper, I appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle I have no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should therefore be upheld. My appeal is on the following grounds:
1. No keeper liability: the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (“PoFA”/“the Act”):
The operator does not not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from me as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. MET Parking Services have failed to do so.
Paragraph 8 of PoFA sets out the requirements that must be met for an operator to recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper of a vehicle, in cases where a Notice to Keeper is issued following the issuing of a Notice to Driver. Paragraph 8(4) states that:(4)The notice [to keeper] must be given by—(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
Paragraph 8(5) defines the "relevant period" as "the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given". As set out below, MET Parking have failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period defined by paragraph 8(5) of PoFA.
Date Notice to Driver was 'given': 02/12/2024
Final day of the "relevant period" of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given: 24/01/2025
Date of issue of Notice to Keeper: 06/03/2025
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 8(6) of the Act): 10/03/2024
As is clear from the dates outlined above, the Notice to Keeper was given 45 days after the end of the relevant period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given, as defined by paragraph 8(5) of PoFA. MET Parking Services are therefore unable to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold me liable as the keeper. Accordingly, as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be held liable for the charge, and my appeal should be upheld.
For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that as the registered keeper I have no liability for this charge, and I request that my appeal is upheld.
Apologies if the quality is a bit bad - the file size was too large.
For future reference - there's a guide to uploading using a third party here: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
Apologies if the quality is a bit bad - the file size was too large.
No chance of a CCJ.
Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
I made a small oopsie and sent the representations on the 30th instead of the 29th (received an email of acceptance after I sent them), how screwed am I?
Make a note in your diary to appeal this on Sunday 29th November using their online appeals option. Appeal only as the Registered Keeper. Do not identify the driver as there is no legal obligation to do so.
Use the following wording in your appeal, making sure not to select any option other that Keeper only or 'other':QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Driver (NtD) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtD can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Then you wait to see what response they give. Keep us informed and show us any response. That Notice to Driver (NtD) does not state the relevant land in sufficient detail. I certainly couldn't find the location based on the detail there.
What were the circumstances of the alleged breach? Is this a residential car park?
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Driver (NtD) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtD can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.