Unfortunately, that NtK is about as PoFA compliant as you can get. There is a minor technical flaw but it is not likely to be enough to persuade a judge that all the requirements of PoFA have been met.
You could argue that the signs are too small, high up and almost impossible to read as the text is mostly in a minuscule font. The other point is that their statement on the back of the NtK that says: "...please forward your appeal within 28 days from the date of issue of this notice..." is a breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) which states:
"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: hat if the recipient appeals within 28 days of RECEIVING the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected;"
Appeal for now with the following but don't be surprised when it is rejected:
Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference]
Dear MET Parking Services,
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I dispute this charge for the following reasons:
1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage
The signage at the site fails the legal test of prominence and fairness. The text is minuscule, and the signs are positioned too high to be legible for a driver or passenger. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be fair, transparent, and clearly communicated, which is not the case here. Your signage fails to meet the standards required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) for legibility and prominence, making it unenforceable.
2. Frustration of Contract Due to Service Delays
The driver was a paying customer at the restaurant, and the delay in departure was caused by slow service due to high demand and capacity issues. This is a circumstance beyond the driver’s control, making enforcement of the parking limit unfair. The contract was frustrated by external factors, and no fair or reasonable enforcement should apply in such cases.
3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL)
There was no financial loss suffered by the landowner or the parking operator, as the restaurant was operating and serving food to paying customers. The charge is unreasonable, disproportionate, and punitive, rather than a genuine reflection of any loss incurred.
4. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Misrepresentation of Appeal Timeframe
Your NtK states that an appeal must be submitted within 28 days from the date of issue, which is a breach of Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP. The correct timeframe should be 28 days from the date of receipt. Any breach of the PPSCoP invalidates your access to keeper data under your KADOE contract with the DVLA. This procedural error means the PCN was issued incorrectly.
Given the above, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled immediately. If you reject this appeal, I require a POPLA code so I can escalate the matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Keeper's Full Name]