Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Rosy on April 17, 2025, 01:11:35 pm

Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on September 04, 2025, 10:04:31 am
I refer you to the response I gave in reply #24 in this thread.

You are not bound by the ignorant and moronic response given by the POPLA assessor. Do not pay anything. Ignore all subsequent debt recovery letters.

Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on September 03, 2025, 08:37:54 pm
Hi all.  Not surprisingly POPLA found in favour of MET Parking Services.  POPLA completely ignored my point that the photos MET provided at night time are of a completely different car park and NOT the one I parked in.  They also say my photos are not a true representation of the signage at the site.  They are literally photos of what's there so how they can't be a true representation is anyone's guess.  I'll post POPlA's response below.

I've now received this letter.  Should I respond or just ignore for now?

(https://i.ibb.co/GfNtgh08/Whats-App-Image-2025-09-03-at-20-35-58.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qLVWbZdc)

POPLA's response:

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. Both the appellant and the operator have provided photographs of the signage on site. In this car park, the terms and conditions state that the maximum stay time is one and a half hours. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked for one hour and 46 minutes. The appellant has raised three main grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately. • The appellant has stated that the keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable for the PCN as the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). PoFA 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. Having reviewed the notice to keeper, I am satisfied that it has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. While the appellant has made reference to section 8.1.2(e) of the Privete Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, this does not relate to PoFA 2012 and does not affect the operator’s ability to transfer liability. It is important to explain that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly. Should the appellant be unhappy with the wording of the appeals process, then they would need to raise this with the parking operator directly. • The appellant has stated that a contract was not formed between the driver and the operator due to non-compliant signage. In support of this, the appellant has provided photographs of the signage and the site. The appellant has also made reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. Regarding signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice states that parking operators needs to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking. I understand that the appellant has made reference to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, but parking operators have until December 2026 to implement the requirements for signage. As such, I will be assessing whether the signage complies with the applicable British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In this case, both the appellant and the operator have provided photographs of the signage on site. Section 19.3 of the BPA Code states that signs must be easy to see, read and understand. On the face of the evidence, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions, along with the consequences of failing to comply with them, are clearly set out. Regarding entrance signage, section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking operators must have entrance signs to advise motorists that they are entering into private land and that there are terms and conditions that they must be aware of. Again, both the appellant and the operator have provided images of the entrance signage and demonstrated its location. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has complied with the requirements regarding entrance signage. While the appellant appears to be indicating that the entrance sign cannot be seen on approach, I can see it within their image; the image was simply taken from a distance so it cannot be read. I further note that the appellant has commented that the signage is not where the operator claims it to be, but the evidence suggests that it is. The operator has also provided further images of the signage, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution throughout the site. I understand that the appellant has commented on every single sign, but in the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, I am satisfied that there is sufficient signage throughout all areas of the site to advise of the parking conditions. I understand that the appellant has provided two images of several parking spaces, but I do not consider this to be an accurate representation of how the signage at the site looks. Regarding signage in the dark, Appendix B states that signs must be visible at all times. Within its evidence file, the operator has provided images of the signage at the night time, which demonstrate that they are well-illuminated during the night time. While the appellant has made reference to signage within disabled bays, by their own admission the motorist did not park within a disabled bay. As a result, I do not consider it necessary to address the adequacy of the signage within the disabled bays. Overall, in light of the evidence, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with the opportunity to review the terms before deciding whether to remain on site. As such, a parking contract was formed. • The appellant has stated that the operator has a lack of standing/authority from the landowner. Section 14.1 of the applicable Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Having reviewed this and taking into consideration the fact that there are many signs at the site, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. I understand that the appellant is unhappy with the contract provided, but they have not provided any evidence which would dispute the validity of the contract in place. For the avoidance of doubt, POPLA’s role is solely to assess the validity of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied that the motorist exceeded the maximum stay time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on June 22, 2025, 08:15:31 am
yes
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on June 22, 2025, 12:00:04 am
Ok understood thanks. But the content other than that is ok?
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on June 20, 2025, 01:06:44 pm
It's all very nice but you cannot submit your response to the operators evidence with photos or anything else. Your response can only be plain, unformatted text, which you can copy and paste into the POPLA response webform. When POPLA look at it, there will be no formatting and will just be a single block of text.

So, forget coloured text, bold text, underlined text. Forget images.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on June 20, 2025, 01:02:10 pm
Yes I probably am! Ok noted.

I've changed privacy settings on the Google doc. Thanks so much.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on June 20, 2025, 12:49:30 pm
DOn't worry about the PoFA bit being left in. You are taking this POPLA appeal far too seriously. If it is unsuccessful, you are not bound by the decision and it has absolutely no bearing on anything going forwards.

I cannot access your response because it requires access permission. Just make it "Public".
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on June 20, 2025, 12:14:53 pm
Hi.  Thank you so much for your help.  This is what I've written in response to their evidence.  What do you think so far?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PMYGlqWGt4OdPeD8nrRHjcN8UdWmSwLE/view?usp=sharing

Can I just double check that their Parking Notice is compliant?  I know I said I thought it was and I removed my evidence to suggest it wasn't, but somehow I sent my POPLA complaint with that bit still left in.  They've obviously come back and said their notice was compliant so I just want to double check. 

Here is the notice:

<a href="https://ibb.co/FL0rBhbP"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/FL0rBhbP/MET-parking-page-1.jpg" alt="MET-parking-page-1" border="0"></a>

<a href="https://ibb.co/1fF1ftXC"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/1fF1ftXC/Met-parking-page-2.jpg" alt="Met-parking-page-2" border="0"></a>

Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on June 18, 2025, 02:39:38 pm
You point out any of your appeal points that have not been rebutted and you rebut any of their appeal points in their evidence. Check what points they have evidenced, as required by the PPSCoP, from this point made in the POPLA appeal:

Quote
Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s);
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission;
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs;
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

I note that they have only provided a couple of pages from their contract with McDonalds and a "Letter of Authority". They have not evidenced the points made in "e" above. When the contract as made 15 years ago, what were the agreed terms and conditions then and have they changed at all since then? For example, has the period of free parking changed? If so, where is the amendment to the contract?
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on June 18, 2025, 02:00:41 pm
Hello.  I've received the parking operator's evidence for my POPLA appeal.  I've uploaded a redacted version here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lWyEE_ch4HTHHdNCEuZdqe49GsRYxoHh/view?usp=sharing

The photos they've supplied for night time are of a completely different car park.  The day time photos - many of them are from the drive through, which the driver didn't access.  That's round the back of the site. 

The landowner contract they've supplied is nearly 15 years old.

They say that half the signs are on white background with black writing and that doesn't affect colour blindness - but that's not how colour blindness works. Half the sign was blue against red, which rendered the whole sign invisible to the driver.

How do I respond, if it all?

Thanks so much for your time and help.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 28, 2025, 03:27:51 pm
Okey doke.  Thanks.  Will report back when I hear back from them.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on May 28, 2025, 03:19:41 pm
It's POPLA. Whatever they decide, if they don't agree with you, it doesn't matter and is not binding on you. Go for it and wait to see what evidence they provide in their response pack.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 28, 2025, 02:47:31 pm
Hi.  I just want to check that this is good to go.  You didn't have any notes on the first part of my representations but if you think this is OK now I will submit today.

Thanks so much.

3. Authority from landowner
I put MET Parking Services to strict proof that they have a valid contract from the landowner, that authorises them to operate and issue Parking Notices in their own name at this specific location.

I require MET Parking Services to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner.

It will not be sufficient for MET Parking Services merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with the PPSCoP, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

Section 14.1. Of the PPSCoP states:

Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s);
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission;
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs;
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

Without a valid contract that contains all the required wording under the PPSCoP, MET Parking Services will have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.  If this is the case, this Parking Notice is invalid and must be cancelled.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 21, 2025, 11:51:07 am
OK thanks so much for your advice.  I've re-written that section - would you say this is OK and the whole thing is good to go?

Authority from landowner
Further, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof that they have a valid contract from the landowner, that authorises them to operate and issue Parking Notices in their own name at this specific location. 

I require MET Parking Services to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner.

It will not be sufficient for MET Parking Services merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with the PPSCoP, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

Section 14.1. Of the PPSCoP states:

Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s);
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission;
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs;
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

Without a valid contract that contains all the required wording under the PPSCoP, MET Parking Services will have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on May 18, 2025, 10:26:14 pm
You do not assert that MET do not have a valid contract flowing from the landowner. You don't know that. You DO put them to strict proof that they have a valid contract.

Unfortunately, POPLA assessors are pretty thick when it comes to proof of a valid contract because they will accept a simple statement that one exists as "proof", together with the absurd argument that if the landowner has allowed signs to put in place, then they must surely be permitted.

You have to explain to the POPLA assessor that any contractual proof will have to fulfil what is required in the PPSCoP. So, whatever that provide as their evidence of a valid contract, it must show what is required in section 14 of the PPSCoP:

Quote
14 Relationship with landowner

14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s);
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission;
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs;
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.

So, you have to lead the POPLA assessor by the nose that a simple signed statement is not evidence, especially if the signatories to the statement are not identified by name and their standing to sign on behalf of their companies. Good luck with getting that agreed to, but it doesn't hurt to try.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 18, 2025, 08:28:45 pm
The 'driver's' colour blindness ;)

Thanks so much.

How does this work for the landowner contract?

3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
MET Parking Services has no title in this land and no PPSCoP compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right has been evidence.
 
Annex G of the PPSCoP dictates some of the required contract wording. I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent).

MET Parking Services has no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare license to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that MET Parking Services are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
 
I require MET Parking Services to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the PPSCoP and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park.

In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for MET Parking Services merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with the PPSCoP, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on May 15, 2025, 02:35:04 pm
Your arguments about your colour blindness is good but I doubt that a POPLA assessor will consider them. They are more of a mitigation rather than pointing out that MET have breached any law or code of practice rules. That does not mean tha you should not try and use that argument.

It would be very good if it were ever to be argued in court, but that will never happen. Even if it goes to a court claim, it would most likely be struck out or discontinued.

Make sure you throw in things such as requiring them to evidence that they have a vales contract flowing from the landowner that authorises them to operate and issue PCNs in their own name at the location.

I doubt a POPLA appeal will be successful in this case but you have to try.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 15, 2025, 10:55:35 am
Hello thank you for your help so far.  I've completely re-written everything after doing more research.  I decided to remove the non compliant NtK bit because I think actually it was compliant.  You very kindly wrote something for me to send off which included the line "Furthermore, the NtK misstates the deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue rather than receipt."

However, I've looked at the NtK again and it states "Please be warned, that if after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given..."  Doesn't the use of the word 'given' make it the date of receipt rather than issue?

Based on that I've made my POPLA appeal about lacking and non compliant signage.  The driver is colour blind so that actually plays into this a lot because the most important part of the entry sign, the part that says there's terms and conditions, is on a blue background, against the red of the brick.  This made it impossible for the driver to see.

Anyway this is what I've written so far - go easy on me.  I'm not as clever as some of you and don't know too much about the law on this!

I'd be ever so grateful for some feedback and anything else you think I should add.

Many thanks.


***

No contract with driver due to lack of and non-compliant signage
Section 3 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) states that signs and road markings must be ‘visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.’

Below is an image taken at the entrance to the McDonald’s car park in similar light conditions to the time the driver entered the car park on X.

(https://i.postimg.cc/N95hgFPq/PXL-20250418-182053555.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/N95hgFPq)

The entry sign here is not obviously visible.  In fact it’s so small that the driver failed to spot it at all.

Upon closer inspection of the available entry sign, it’s clear it is not compliant with Annex A of the PPSCoP.

Section A.3 states with regards to contrast and illumination; ‘There must be colour contrast between the text and its background. The best way to achieve this is to have dark, preferably black, text on a white background, recognising that the use of corporate colours, whilst permissible, could cause problems e.g. for drivers who are colour blind.’

Below is a close up of the available entry sign:

(https://i.postimg.cc/FkS0Xbyf/PXL-20250512-173020644.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/FkS0Xbyf)

Section A.3 of the PPSCoP is particularly significant in this case because the driver has red, green and blue colour blindness. The use of a blue background on a sign placed in front of red brick, meant the sign became almost invisible to the driver. This is in direct contravention of the PPSCoP, which states the signs must be clearly visible and take into account colours which may affect drivers who are colourblind.

Furthermore,whilst part of the sign uses black text on a white background, the most important part of the sign, the part that tells the driver there are terms and conditions, does not.  The use of white text against the blue background does not create a clear enough contrast, in direct contravention of Section A.3, which states the best way to achieve this is to use ‘black text on a white background.’

This meant that when the driver entered the car park that evening they had no idea they were about to park on land governed by terms and conditions, and terms which involved a £100 parking charge for non compliance.

This also puts MET Parking Services in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  Section 64 of the Act states that any terms and conditions must be transparent and prominent, and sufficiently drawn to the attention of the customer. 

Without transparency and prominence, and where terms are one sided, they are deemed to be unfair and therefore not binding on the customer.

Furthermore, section 3.1.3 subheading a of the PPSCoP states that any signage within the controlled land must be placed ‘such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.’

The image below shows several bays within the car park.  The driver was parked either where the blue car is or to the right of it.

As you can see there are no nearby signs, which could have alerted the driver to the fact they’d just parked on land controlled by terms and conditions. 

(https://i.postimg.cc/TyF83mLj/car-park.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/TyF83mLj)

When the driver exited the vehicle they would have turned around to face McDonald’s.  Below shows the view they’d have seen:

(https://i.postimg.cc/t1HSS5xM/PXL-20250418-182126924.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/t1HSS5xM)

As you can see there are also no signs displaying terms and conditions here either.  This is in direct contravention to clause 4.1 of the PPSCoP, ‘Accessible Parking’, which states that ‘the parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.’

Had signage been available here the driver might have become aware that they were parking on land controlled by terms and conditions.


Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on May 11, 2025, 08:54:43 pm
Forget your original appeal. The POPLA appeal is a fresh appeal and you should not reference the original appeal.

Make all your points and expect to have them all rebutted. Any points they do not rebut or answer in their evidence pack (when it comes) can be highlighted.

If you are arguing a point of law of the PPSCoP, then reference it and make sure you use the correct version of the Code of Practice. Any notice issued after October 2024 references the PPSCoP. Anything before that, the relevant BPA CoP.

If you are referencing PoFA, make sure you understand which paragraphs are relevant. For example, paragraph 8 relates to Notices to Driver (NtD). Paragraph 8 relates to a Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued after an NtD is not responded to. Paragraph 9 relates to an NtK issued without an NtD.

Don't rush this. You have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 11, 2025, 08:14:38 pm
If anyone could advise on my POPLA appeal above I'd be ever so grateful.  Thanks so much.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 08, 2025, 12:58:32 pm
Hi all - thanks for your help so far.

I have written this POPLA appeal based on one I found on this site.  I'd really appreciate your feedback.  Thanks so much.  (Images not included here but they're visible above and will be included in my appeal.):

POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal Points

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have reviewed the response by MET Parking Services to my appeal, dated 20th April 2025. I submit the following detailed response to their evidence, highlighting critical points from my original appeal that have not been fully addressed or rebutted.

1. **Signage: Inadequate and Unclear – No Valid Contract Formed**

Original Appeal Argument:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the parking charge of £100 upon breach, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii), which states the signage must adequately bring the parking charge to the attention of the driver. 

MET Parking Services response:
MET Parking Services claims the terms and conditions are clearly and prominently stated on signs displayed around the site.   They state that they believe the signs are ‘sufficient’, and made of a ‘retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899- 1:2007 class RA1, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs’.

However, they failed to address the core issue: the size, clarity, and prominence of the £100 parking charge, which is not at all visible as you enter the car park.

As you can see from the image below,  the signage at the entry point of the car park is so small that the driver failed to spot it.  There is also no obvious mention of a £100 parking charge.  If it is on the sign it can only be buried in the small text, making it almost impossible for a motorist to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes a substantial penalty for non-compliance.  This is contrary to the BPA Code of Practice, which states that any parking charge must be adequately brought to the attention of the driver, using the same size font.
Furthermore, as you can see from the images below there are no signs around where the driver parked and no signs in the direction in which they’d have walked towards McDonald’s, meaning signage at the site is inadequate.

In contrast, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text.

Unanswered:
MET Parking Services did not provide evidence that their £100 charge is displayed in a prominent fashion as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, or that it was brought to the driver’s attention in line with PoFA requirements.  Nor did they provide evidence that enough signage is prominently displayed around the car park, adequately bringing the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers.

 The image comparison I provided clearly shows how the £100 charge is not visible on the entry sign, and that there is insufficient signage around the car park, supporting my claim that no valid contract was formed.

 2. **Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012**

Original Appeal Argument:
MET Parking Services has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.

Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by the driver. MET Parking Services’ failure to comply with key requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.

MET Parking Services NtK fails PoFA on the following point:
The NtK misstates the deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue rather than receipt, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice section 8.1.2(e). PoFA compliance requires strict adherence; partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient.

MET Parking Services response:
MET Parking Services simply responded to this point by saying ‘We are confident that our Notice to Keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act.’

They went on to state that as ‘17 days has passed since we issued the charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.’ 

Unanswered:
MET Parking Services failed to address the mistake in their NtK with regards the deadline for lodging an appeal.  They have failed to show how their NtK complied with the specific PoFA point listed above.

Their simple assertion of compliance is not enough. PoFA compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.

Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.

MET Parking Services has not demonstrated why they believe the registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.

As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver, MET Parking Services has no legal grounds to pursue this charge against me.


**Conclusion:**

In conclusion, MET Parking Services has failed to address or rebut the key points of my original appeal and demonstrate why they believe this parking change was issued correctly. Their evidence submission does not disprove any of the following:

(a) Inadequate signage that fails to form a valid contract with the driver, particularly regarding the display of the £100 charge.

(b) Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.

(c) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice, with inadequate entrance signage and unclear display of parking terms.

Based on these points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 04, 2025, 09:41:07 pm
Thanks. I'll check out other appeals. Any you'd advise me to look at especially? Or any?

I've not edited the content of their letter so the 17 days is what they wrote. I don't understand it either.

Appeal rejection is the 2nd May.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on May 04, 2025, 11:52:40 am
No initial appeal is ever successful. There is no money in it for them. You now have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection (which you have redacted for some obscure reason) to appeal to POPLA.

Hve a search of the forum to see how other POPLA appeals are formatted and what is in them and put something together and then show us, before you send anything. We will be able to advise on any changes that will need to be made.

I have no idea what this refers to in their response:

Quote
"We are confident that our Notice to Keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in full and 17 days has passed since we issued the charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge."

Is that a typo that you have made: "17 days"?
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on May 03, 2025, 11:01:16 pm
Hello.  Thanks so much for your help the other week.  I've received this reply from MET parking.  I'd be so grateful if you could tell me what I need to do next.  Thank you so much.

Dear XXXX,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXXX (Vehicle: XXXX)
Site: (237) McDonald's Shenley Road
Issue date: XXXX
POPLA Verification Code: XXXX

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These
include that parking is for customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum permitted stay in this area
of 90 minutes. Your vehicle remained on site for longer than the maximum permitted stay therefore we believe the
charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it.

We are confident that there are sufficient signs, which are made using a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-
1:2007 class RA1, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs, at this location bringing the terms and
conditions of parking to the attention of motorists. The signs are visible during the hours of darkness as they reflect light
from the lamp posts they are fixed to, ambient light and light from vehicles themselves. It remains the driver's
responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking.

We are confident that our Notice to Keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in full and 17 days has passed since we issued the
charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue
the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.

This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:

1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge
at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date
the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution
agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made
online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the
online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: XXXX Please note that POPLA will consider
the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please
note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to
pay the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to
POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides
an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not
chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do
so to POPLA as explained above.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may
proceed with court action.

Yours sincerely

Appeals Department
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on April 19, 2025, 11:54:49 am
Wow thank you so so much! I didn't spot that sign yesterday at all when I took the pictures.
Thanks again - hugely appreciated.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on April 19, 2025, 11:05:22 am
There is an entrance sign:

(https://i.imgur.com/D7Es9lU.jpeg)

However, irrespective of that, there are other reasons to dispute the charge. Any initial appeal is going to be rejected, no matter what. The point though, is to get a POPLA code for a secondary, supposedly independent appeal service.

For now, appeal only as the Keeper of the vehicle with the following:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The signage at the site fails to adequately bring to the attention of drivers the parking charge payable upon breach, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Furthermore, the NtK misstates the deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue rather than receipt, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice section 8.1.2(e). PoFA compliance requires strict adherence; partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient.

There will be no admission as to who was driving. No presumption, inference, or legal assumption can be made. MET has elected to pursue the charge under contract law against the driver, and you are therefore unable to transfer liability to the keeper.

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 NtK 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.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on April 18, 2025, 07:54:23 pm
Hi thanks for your reply.  The driver didn't know there were restrictions as they didn't see any obvious signs and didn't think to look for any.

I went there tonight and and have uploaded a few photos.  Here they are:

There are no signs upon entry to the car park. There are signs to the right as you drive in but the driver wouldn't have looked there as that's where electric vehicles park so the driver would have driven straight past this.
https://ibb.co/whS0ZC9M

The driver parked to the right of the light blue car in this photo.  There are no signs around that area.  There are two signs at either end of this row of cars but not obvious unless you're parked there, which the driver wasn't.
https://ibb.co/FbxpsSyP

Photo three is what the driver saw as they got out the car to walk into McDonalds - again no signs.
https://ibb.co/1GPkNBBH


Photo four and five are the signs on the lamppost right at the end of the bay - it's very high up.
https://ibb.co/V0C8x4KZ
https://ibb.co/Q3G2zjdJ

Photos 6 and 7 are an overview of the car park.  Again, not obvious that there are any signs to look for.  You can just see the two signs on the lampposts at either end of the row of parked cars.  That appears to be all there is in that section. 
https://ibb.co/jcbVnLf
https://ibb.co/k6KXtXYh


How do I phrase my representations?

Thanks so much.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on April 17, 2025, 06:08:08 pm
There is no legal requirement to mention PoFA. The only requirement is that all the requirements as laid out in PoFA are fully complied with.
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Sander333 on April 17, 2025, 05:56:39 pm
b 789 there is no mention of POFA on the notice am I missing something when you say it is POFA compliant. Or have I missed seeing something on the PCN
Title: Re: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: b789 on April 17, 2025, 05:29:40 pm
The driver didn't realise there were restrictions.
Is this company letigeous? What would your advice be please?

Why didn't the driver realise there were restrictions? Are there no signs? Is there a sign at the entrance to the car park that adequately informs drivers that it is private land and that parking restrictions apply and to see the terms and conditions signs in the car park? Are there any (sufficient) terms and conditions signs within the car park that adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching the terms and conditions?

MET are litigious but that doesn't matter because once they litigate and a claim is defended, the claim will likely be struck out or discontinued.

As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant, and any initial appeal will be unsuccessful, you will get a chance to try and appeal to POPLA but I doubt that will be successful either unless you can evidence that the signs at the car park do comply with the requirements of the BPA CoP (v9 January 2024).

Even if unsuccessful at POPLA, you would eventually receive a claim and would need to defend it, with our assistance. Eventually, as I mentioned, it will end.

So are you prepared to go all the way fighting this
Title: MET Parking Services ticket
Post by: Rosy on April 17, 2025, 01:11:35 pm
Hello all. The driver was at McDonald's with friends and their children and the RK received this ticket for overstaying. The driver didn't realise there were restrictions.
Is this company letigeous? What would your advice be please?
Thanks so much.

[attachment deleted by admin]