You should send the following to YOUR MP Find My MP (https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons):
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Postcode]
[Your Email]
[Date]
[MP’s Name]
[MP’s Office Address]
[City, Postcode]
Subject: Urgent Concern Regarding Private Parking Regulation and the BPA’s Failure to Enforce Standards
Dear [MP’s Name],
I am writing to you to raise serious concerns about the British Parking Association (BPA) and its failure to properly regulate its Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) members, despite its Accredited Trade Association (ATA) status under the DVLA. Specifically, the BPA has failed to take action against MET Parking Services, which has refused to engage with a formal complaint I submitted.
Background
• MET Parking issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in circumstances I believe to be unfair.
• I submitted a formal complaint to MET Parking about their conduct and the way they handle enforcement.
• MET Parking wrongly dismissed my formal complaint as an “appeal” and refused to engage with the issues raised.
I then escalated the matter to the BPA, expecting them to enforce their own Code of Practice, which requires operators to handle complaints separately from appeals. The BPA responded with a dismissive reply, refusing to intervene despite clear evidence of MET Parking’s breach of industry standards.
The BPA’s refusal to hold MET Parking accountable raises serious concerns about its suitability as an ATA. Under its agreement with the DVLA, the BPA is expected to ensure its members comply with fair business practices, yet it repeatedly fails to take meaningful action when members engage in unfair and misleading behaviour.
This failure is part of a wider pattern where the BPA consistently shields parking companies from scrutiny, rather than enforcing consumer protections. As you are aware, the private parking industry has been heavily criticised for its predatory and exploitative practices, and this case is yet another example of why urgent reform is needed.
I ask you to:
• Raise this matter directly with the BPA, challenging their failure to enforce their own standards against MET Parking.
• Refer this case to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), which is responsible for regulating private parking and developing a statutory Parking Code of Practice.
• Support a review of the BPA’s suitability as an ATA, given its repeated failures to hold its members accountable.
• Press for stronger regulation of the private parking industry, particularly in ensuring that ATAs are fit for purpose and that motorists are not subjected to unfair enforcement.
I have attached copies of all relevant correspondence, including MET Parking’s refusal to properly process my complaint and the BPA’s dismissive response.
I would appreciate your intervention in this matter and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Attach copies of:
• Your original complaint to MET Parking.
• MET Parking’s misleading response dismissing your complaint.
• Your complaint to the BPA.
• The BPA’s dismissive reply.
I also suggest you respond to Gemma Dorans at the BPA with the following:
Subject: Formal Complaint Against MET Parking – BPA’s Failure to Enforce Standards
Dear Ms Dorans,
I am writing to express my disappointment with your inadequate response regarding my formal complaint against MET Parking Services. Your reply fails to address the central issue—MET Parking did not properly handle my complaint, instead misrepresenting it as an appeal. This is a blatant failure to comply with the requirements of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
Key Issues:
1. MET Parking ignored my formal complaint and wrongly treated it as an appeal.
2. Their response did not address any of the concerns I raised, showing a deliberate refusal to engage in complaint resolution.
3. Your response does not hold MET Parking accountable for failing to adhere to the BPA’s standards for complaints handling.
The BPA, as an Accredited Trade Association (ATA), has a duty to ensure its members operate fairly and in accordance with its Code of Practice. By refusing to take action against MET Parking, you are failing to fulfil your role as a regulator. This is particularly concerning given the government’s ongoing scrutiny of private parking firms and the role of ATAs in enforcing industry standards.
Formal Request for Action
I now expect the BPA to confirm:
1. What specific enforcement measures will be taken against MET Parking for their failure to handle complaints properly?
2. Why the BPA considers it acceptable for an AOS member to dismiss a formal complaint by falsely categorising it as an appeal?
3. What steps the BPA will take to ensure members comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) in relation to complaint handling?
Your response will determine whether I escalate this matter further to regulatory bodies.
Involvement of My MP and Further Escalation
Due to the BPA’s persistent failure to regulate its members effectively, I am now escalating this issue to my MP and requesting that they raise it with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). It is clear that the BPA is failing in its regulatory responsibilities, and I believe it is necessary for the government to reconsider its suitability as an ATA.
I expect a substantive response outlining what action will be taken against MET Parking. If I receive another dismissive reply, I will take this matter further, including raising it with the DVLA regarding MET Parking’s access to registered keeper data.
I look forward to your urgent response.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Here is your POPLA appeal:
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Verification Code]
Appellant: [Your Name]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration Number: [Insert Registration]
Subject: Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice Issued by MET Parking Services
Grounds for Appeal
1. Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable – PoFA Non-Compliance
2. No Proof of Driver Identity
3. Zero Evidence to Support the Allegation
4. Unlawful and Unenforceable Claim Regarding “Occupants”
5. Demand for Strict Proof of Landowner Authority
1. Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable – PoFA Non-Compliance
As the Registered Keeper, I cannot be held liable for this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to MET Parking Services’ failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the mandatory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, particularly:
• Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK does not specify the required “period of parking.” Instead, it vaguely refers to “the period of parking prior to 11:23 on 23rd December 2024.”
• This generic reference does not constitute a defined period of parking, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge held that a failure to specify a clear “period of parking” is non-compliant with PoFA.
• Paragraph 9(2)(e): The NtK fails to properly “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or identify the driver. This failure means that MET cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
The full transcript of the Brennan judgment, for reference: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=5zeipvip&dl=0
As MET Parking has failed to comply with PoFA, they have no lawful basis to hold the Keeper liable for this charge.
2. No Proof of Driver Identity
MET Parking has not provided any evidence that the individual they are pursuing is the driver. Under PoFA, the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated, private parking company like MET Parking Services.
As the Keeper, I have no intention of assisting a predatory company whose practices have earned private parking firms such a poor reputation. Unless MET can provide clear, conclusive evidence that the driver has been identified, their PCN must be cancelled.
3. Zero Evidence to Support the Allegation
MET Parking alleges that the “occupants” of the vehicle left the McDonald’s Leytonstone site. However, they have provided absolutely no evidence to support this claim. The photographs in the NtK show only a parked vehicle and do nothing to substantiate their speculative and baseless allegation.
The so-called "survey" provided by MET is completely unsubstantiated and proves nothing. It lacks:
• Time-stamped photographic or video evidence showing the occupants leaving the site.
• Any signed statements or corroborative evidence from independent witnesses.
This lack of evidence renders MET’s PCN entirely speculative and invalid.
4. Unlawful and Unenforceable Claim Regarding “Occupants”
MET Parking’s allegation that all occupants of the vehicle must remain on-site is utterly preposterous, both legally and practically. No reasonable person could believe that such an absurd and disproportionate obligation could form the basis of a valid contract.
First, MET has provided no evidence to support their claim that the alleged contravention occurred. They have not proven that all occupants left the premises, nor have they provided any indication of how this could possibly be monitored or enforced. The so-called "survey" they have submitted fails to prove anything and raises serious concerns about their methods (addressed further below).
Second, the idea that a driver entering into a contract to park could somehow extend liability to all passengers of the vehicle is legally and contractually nonsensical. For this condition to be enforceable, the signage would need to:
• Explicitly define which “occupants” are covered by this obligation.
• Explain how a motorist is expected to control or monitor the actions of passengers, particularly adults, once they leave the vehicle.
• Specify the consequences for non-compliance in a way that is fair, reasonable, and transparent under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
MET’s signage fails to do any of these things. Even if it attempted to impose such a condition, it would be deemed unfair and unenforceable under consumer protection laws due to its ambiguity and disproportionate nature.
Furthermore, the suggestion that passengers entering a McDonald’s restaurant and later leaving the site could breach the terms of a parking contract is farcical. MET Parking appears to be arguing that a contract for parking allows them to:
• Track and monitor the movements of private individuals.
• Hold the driver liable for actions that are entirely outside their control.
Such behaviour is not only absurd but could also be construed as a breach of privacy. If MET Parking believes this to be a valid term of their alleged contract, they are reminded that unfair terms are not legally binding under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
If the POPLA assessor reviewing this case fails to recognise the absurdity and illegality of this claim, it would raise serious questions about their understanding of fair contract principles. Such a failure could reinforce concerns that POPLA is not truly independent and may, in practice, lean towards protecting the interests of the parking operators who fund it. A decision not to reject this appeal on such an obvious and indefensible point would do little to dispel the perception that POPLA serves as a mechanism that too often favours operators rather than acting as an impartial appeals body.
5. Demand for Strict Proof of Landowner Authority
MET Parking Services is put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a clear chain of authority flowing from the freeholder or landholder of the "relevant land" to MET Parking.
It is not accepted that MET Parking has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace periods, hours of operation, or instructions regarding the cancellation of charges due to complaints. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the freeholder authorises MET to issue parking charges, or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are. It is also unclear whether MET Parking has standing to enforce such charges in their own name, as opposed to holding a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
As part of this, MET Parking is put to strict proof of specific clauses in the landowner contract explicitly authorising them to impose charges based on the alleged behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site. This clause is critical because it forms the basis of MET’s allegation. Without evidence of such an explicit clause, MET has no right to issue or enforce a charge under these circumstances.
The operator is further put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). As MET Parking does not have proprietary interest in the relevant land, I require them to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. This must include any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out key details such as:
• Specific clauses authorising MET Parking to impose charges based on the alleged behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site.
• Definitions and exemptions (e.g., any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions).
• Any site occupier’s right of veto or charge cancellation rights.
The above evidence is critical to define what MET Parking is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landholder or site occupiers (e.g., McDonald’s) may override or cancel a charge.
It cannot be assumed that because an agent has been contracted to erect signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, they are also authorised to:
• Make enforceable contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers.
• Pursue legal action to enforce parking charges in their own name.
A witness statement will not suffice. Such statements are often pre-signed, generic documents that fail to identify the specific case or site rules. While a witness statement might sometimes be accepted by POPLA, in this case, I assert that it is insufficient to evidence the specific terms of the agreement between MET and the landholder.
Without full, unredacted evidence of their landholder authority—including clauses explicitly relating to the alleged behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site—MET Parking’s right to issue and enforce this charge cannot be established, and the PCN must be cancelled.
Conclusion
The Parking Charge Notice issued by MET Parking Services is invalid and unenforceable for the following reasons:
• Non-compliance with PoFA.
• Failure to provide evidence that the Keeper is the driver.
• Zero evidence to support the allegation that vehicle occupants left the site.
• An absurd and unlawful claim regarding vehicle occupants.
• Failure to demonstrate landowner authority to issue charges based on the alleged contravention.
I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Send this response to the feckwit “Harry” at McDonalds:
Subject: Urgent Escalation: Allegations of Privacy Breaches and Possible Criminal Behaviour Involving McDonald’s Employee and Agent
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my utter disbelief at the inadequate and dismissive response provided by “Harry” from your Customer Services team, dated 20 January 2025, regarding the serious allegations I raised about MET Parking Services’ conduct and the involvement of a McDonald’s employee in their supposed activities.
Harry’s response demonstrates a shocking lack of comprehension and intellectual rigour. The tone and content of the response are utterly inappropriate given the gravity of the situation. This is not, as your response so absurdly implies, a simple complaint about a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This matter involves serious allegations of privacy breaches and potentially unlawful or criminal behaviour, committed not only by MET Parking Services, one of your agents, but also by an individual purporting to be your employee.
The Allegations:
MET Parking Services have claimed that their operative, in collaboration with a McDonald’s employee, conducted a “survey” of all customers within the Leytonstone restaurant, including those in private areas such as toilets, to confirm that no one was connected to a parked vehicle. This claim, if true, raises critical concerns, including:
1. Gross Breach of Privacy: Conducting such a “survey” constitutes a clear and egregious violation of customer privacy. No customer should be subject to such invasive actions while using your facilities.
2. Unlawful or Criminal Behaviour: Any unauthorised questioning of individuals in private areas, such as toilets, borders on harassment and potentially constitutes criminal conduct.
3. Fabrication and Misrepresentation: If this claim is fabricated, it demonstrates a blatant lie by MET Parking Services and implicates McDonald’s as jointly and severally liable for their agent’s conduct under agency law.
Inadequacy of Your Response:
The banal and entirely inappropriate response from “Harry” exposes a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of the matter. Instead of addressing the key issues, your team has reduced this to a generic script about parking restrictions and referred me back to MET Parking Services. This is an insult to my intelligence and to the seriousness of these allegations.
McDonald’s Joint Liability:
As MET Parking Services operates as your agent, and given the alleged involvement of one of your employees in this invasive and possibly unlawful activity, McDonald’s is jointly and severally liable for their actions. This is not a matter you can deflect onto MET Parking Services. The actions (or fabrications) of your employee and agent are your responsibility, and the failure to act appropriately in response to this complaint compounds that liability.
Demands for Immediate Action:
I demand that McDonald’s take the following steps immediately:
1. Escalate this matter to senior management or an executive competent to address issues of privacy breaches, potential criminality, and agency liability.
2. Conduct an urgent investigation into MET Parking Services’ claims that a McDonald’s employee participated in this alleged “survey” and provide a clear, formal response explaining your findings.
3. Provide assurances that McDonald’s takes such allegations seriously and will hold both MET Parking Services and any implicated employees accountable for their actions.
Consequences of Inaction:
If McDonald’s continues to ignore the seriousness of this issue or fails to act decisively, I will have no hesitation in:
• Pursuing legal action against McDonald’s and MET Parking Services for privacy breaches, harassment, and any other actionable misconduct.
• Publicising this matter widely to expose the gross mishandling and negligence displayed by McDonald’s and its agents.
This is your opportunity to demonstrate that McDonald’s takes its obligations to customers seriously. I trust you will escalate this matter appropriately and respond in a manner befitting its seriousness.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
Send the following as a formal complaint to the BPA and copy in MET and McDonalds:
Subject: Formal Complaint Against MET Parking Services - Fabrication of Evidence for PCN [reference number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to lodge a formal complaint against MET Parking Services regarding their handling of PCN [reference number] and, more critically, the blatant fabrication of evidence upon which their claim rests.
On [date], I submitted a formal complaint to MET Parking Services challenging the legitimacy of this PCN. Instead of addressing the points raised, MET provided a generic and wholly inadequate response, incorrectly treating my formal complaint as an appeal. This dismissive handling of the matter shows a complete disregard for the standards of professional conduct required under the BPA Code of Practice.
MET Parking Services has alleged that the driver and passengers of the vehicle in question "left the site" while the vehicle remained in the McDonald’s Leytonstone car park. As part of their justification for issuing this PCN, MET has made the preposterous claim that their operative, together with a McDonald’s employee, conducted a "survey" of every customer in the restaurant — including those in the toilets — to ascertain that no one in the restaurant was connected to the vehicle. This claim is so outrageously implausible that it warrants immediate investigation.
It is obvious to any reasonable person that such a "survey" could not and did not take place. MET has failed to provide any credible evidence to support this mendacious allegation. Their claim is an insult to intelligence and demonstrates a complete disregard for the standards of professionalism and fairness required of a BPA member.
This fabrication is not only absurd but also indicative of a wider issue with MET’s conduct. It raises serious concerns about their willingness to rely on blatantly false narratives to pursue parking charges. Should MET attempt to litigate this matter, their claims would be laughed out of court, and their behaviour would likely result in sanctions for unreasonable conduct. I am prepared to counterclaim for damages and expose this farce to the media if MET persists in pursuing this baseless charge.
The BPA must take this matter seriously. By allowing such behaviour to go unchecked, the BPA risks its own reputation and credibility as the Approved Trade Association that purports to regulate its members. If the court were to see such conduct exposed, it would undoubtedly reflect poorly on the BPA’s oversight of its members.
I request that the BPA:
1. Investigate MET Parking Services for fabricating evidence in support of PCN [reference number].
2. Require MET to provide clear and unequivocal evidence to substantiate their claim, including detailed records of the alleged "survey."
3. Take appropriate action to ensure that MET Parking Services ceases such deceitful practices immediately.
The BPA’s role is to ensure that its members adhere to the highest standards of integrity. Allowing MET to continue with such behaviour without consequence would undermine public trust in the BPA and the private parking industry as a whole.
I look forward to your response and confirmation that you are treating this matter with the seriousness it deserves.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
You will have to submit it through the BPA portal at https://portal.britishparking.co.uk/compliance/LogComplaint
You will need to upload a copy of METs response to your formal complaint. You can also upload the original complaint. As for the content above, you can either save it as a PDF and upload or copy and paste it into the relevant box in the poertal.
Before the appeal, you may as well have some fun at METs expense. Their appeal rejection is so absurd, that it warrants a formal complaint to MET which they are obliged to respond to so that you can escalate it to the BPA to highlight METs intellectual malnourishment and why they are not fit to be allowed to operate.
Send the following as a PDF attachment in an email to complaints@metparking.com and CC in customerservices@mcdonalds.co.uk and yourself:
MET Parking Services Ltd
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE
By email: complaints@metparking.com
CC: customerservices@mcdonalds.co.uk
[Date]
Dear MET Parking Services,
I am writing to formally complain about your handling of my appeal regarding Parking Charge Notice [PCN NUMBER], issued in relation to an alleged parking contravention at McDonald’s Leytonstone.
The rejection of my appeal, dated 16th January 2025, is so absurdly deficient in logic and evidence that it calls into question not only the validity of the charge but also the competence of the individual who composed the response. If the author of that letter is representative of your company’s intellectual calibre, one can only hope there is at least one responsible adult within MET Parking Services who might explain the gravity of this complaint to them.
1. The Preposterous "Survey" Claim
You have stated that your parking attendant, in collaboration with a McDonald’s staff member, conducted a “survey” of all customers in the busy restaurant—including those in the toilets—and concluded that there was no one “taking responsibility” for my vehicle.
This claim is so utterly ridiculous that it warrants closer scrutiny:
• Privacy Concerns: Are you seriously suggesting that your attendant was monitoring customers in private areas such as toilets? If so, this raises significant ethical and legal issues regarding the surveillance practices of your staff.
• Feasibility: How, in a busy McDonald’s restaurant, could your attendant feasibly identify every single customer, verify their activities, and ascertain who was “taking responsibility” for any given vehicle? This task is not only impossible but also nonsensical and I suggest the response is mendacious.
• Fabrication: Without any evidence to support this “survey,” it appears this narrative has been fabricated to justify the issuance of the charge. If this “survey” truly occurred, I request you provide time-stamped documentation, signed statements from the parking attendant and McDonald’s staff, and CCTV evidence to support your claim.
2. Lack of Evidence
Your rejection letter contains no evidence to substantiate your claim that the occupants of the vehicle left the premises. The photographs included in your Notice to Keeper merely show a parked vehicle, which proves nothing about the alleged breach. The complete absence of evidence in your response renders your position untenable.
3. Unclear and Unfair Terms
Your signage fails to clearly state whether it is the driver or all occupants of the vehicle who must remain on the premises. If the expectation is that all occupants must remain, this is an unreasonable and unenforceable term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Moreover, if the signage refers only to the driver, your case fails outright, as you have made no effort to identify the driver and cannot transfer liability to the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as your Notice to Keeper is non-compliant.
4. Entrapment and Predatory Practices
If your parking attendant genuinely believed a breach was imminent, their responsibility was to intervene and prevent it, not sit silently while observing what they later deemed to be a contravention. Your approach appears predatory, prioritising revenue generation over fair and reasonable enforcement of parking terms.
5. Conduct of Your Staff
It is difficult to ignore the appalling lack of professionalism and basic reasoning exhibited in your rejection letter. Whoever composed it has demonstrated an extraordinary level of intellectual malnourishment. If the recipient of this complaint is equally incapable of grasping the absurdity of your response, I strongly recommend that they consult a responsible adult within your organisation who can explain it to them.
Resolution Requested
Given the numerous failings outlined above, I request that you:
1. Cancel the Parking Charge Notice immediately.
2. Provide a full written explanation addressing the points raised in this complaint.
3. Confirm that you have reviewed and addressed the conduct of the individual responsible for composing the rejection letter.
If you fail to resolve this complaint satisfactorily, I will have no hesitation in escalating the matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and other relevant bodies.
Yours sincerely
[YOUR NAME]
I did speak with McDonalds about this issue and the privacy concerns and allegation that one of their staff members was involved with this "survey" which included checking in the toilets and they would like to be copied in and will escalate this up their management food chain.
We have plenty of time to do the POPLA appeal if this letter does not get the matter resolved first.
So, they have no evidence to prove their allegation that "Vehicle was left in McDonalds car park while the occupants left McDonalds premises".
Unless you can download their photo of the sign at a higher resolution, it impossible to see what the terms say on that sign. Can you get your own photo of the sign?
The Keeper simply appeals with the following:
This is a formal appeal against the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by MET Parking Services regarding an alleged parking contravention at McDonald’s Leytonstone.
Your allegation is that the Keepers vehicle was parked at the location and the occupants left the premises. However, MET has provided zero proof that the vehicle’s occupants left the McDonald’s site. The photographs included in your Notice to Keeper show only a parked car, which proves nothing regarding your allegation. Your entire claim is based on pure speculation, and the lack of clarity in your signage further undermines any suggestion that a contract was breached.
The alleged breach appears to be based on occupants "leaving the premises", but your NtK does not specify whether it is only the driver who must remain on-site or whether this supposed obligation extends to all vehicle occupants. If your claim is that all passengers must remain on-site at all times, this is utterly unenforceable and would be considered an unfair and unreasonable contractual term. On the other hand, if the signage refers only to the driver, then your claim is clearly flawed, as you have made no attempt to identify the driver.
Furthermore, given that the photographs were taken by your operative, it is clear that they were physically present at the time of the alleged contravention. For your operative to have concluded that the occupants "left the site," they must have been actively stalking the vehicle’s occupants for an extended period.
Just consider what this actually means:
• Your operative saw the occupants exit the vehicle.
• They waited while the occupants entered the McDonald’s restaurant.
• They continued waiting while the occupants purchased food and consumed their meals.
• They then followed the occupants after they left the restaurant and, at some unspecified point, claimed that the occupants left the site.
This timeline of events raises serious concerns about the conduct of your operative. If your operative was following the occupants around for the duration of their visit, this constitutes targeted surveillance and harassment.
If your operative genuinely believed that a breach was imminent, they had a duty to intervene and prevent it by informing the occupants of the alleged terms. Instead, your operative chose to wait silently, allowing a supposed breach to occur so that they could later issue a charge. This is a blatant example of entrapment and undermines any legitimacy your claim might have had.
Moreover, the occupants of the vehicle did enter the restaurant, purchased food, and consumed their meals inside. The most plausible scenario is that your operative only began following them after they left the restaurant and fabricated a narrative about them "leaving the site" in an attempt to justify issuing this charge.
If MET were to try and litigate over this, it would be laughed out of court. Any reasonable person would conclude that your claims are vague, predatory, and completely unsupported by evidence. MET has not clarified whether it is the driver or all occupants who must remain on-site, your photographs prove nothing, and your case relies entirely on speculative, unproven stalking.
Unless MET can provide clear, time-stamped evidence that the driver and/or all occupants left the McDonald’s site immediately upon arrival — which you cannot — this charge is doomed to fail. If MET are foolish enough to pursue this through litigation, you would be laughed out of court, and your unreasonable behaviour would be dealt with accordingly.
However, if you refuse to cancel this Parking Charge Notice, you must issue a POPLA code so that your absurd claim can be dismantled by the assessor. You have zero prospect of success at POPLA, and your incompetence will serve as entertainment during the appeal process.