Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Jogon on October 07, 2025, 06:37:37 pm
-
I’m sure they’re “highly trained” in the same way flat-pack furniture instructions are “clear and intuitive”. Technically present, practically useless, and frequently assembled backwards. ::)
-
I've submitted the response, one would hope those highly trained individuals at Popla will make the right decision and then again, Pigs might fly.
Thankyou b789 thus far, your advice and help is as ever much appreciated,
-
The incident was in McDonalds in a suburb of Birmingham?
The London airports are often talking about expanding to fit in extra runways... ;D
-
Oops. you’re right – the Stansted/byelaws template doesn’t fit this case at all. My bad.
Here is a corrected set of POPLA comments tailored to MET’s evidence for the McDonald’s disabled bay case. You can just fill in the bits in square brackets and paste the rest into the POPLA “comments on operator’s evidence” box.
POPLA comments on operator evidence – MET Parking Services
PCN: [reference]
Vehicle: [registration]
Appellant: Registered Keeper
Site: McDonald’s [location]
These comments respond to MET Parking Services’ POPLA evidence. They should be read alongside my original appeal.
1. No keeper liability – Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant
MET say they are “pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012” and describe their Notice to Keeper (NtK) as “compliant”. It is not.
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking” to which the notice relates. MET’s NtK does not specify any period of parking. It shows only still images with single timestamps, taken within a very short interval. A series of moments in time is not a “period of parking”.
The NtK does not state when any alleged parking event began, when it ended, or how long the vehicle was parked. Without a specified period of parking, MET have failed to comply with a mandatory condition of Schedule 4. PoFA is strict; partial or substantial compliance is not enough.
Because the NtK is not fully compliant, MET cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified. In law, only the driver could be liable. For this reason alone, the appeal must be allowed.
2. Misuse of PoFA – breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d)
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (version 1.1) at section 8.1.1(d) states that an operator must not:
“state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”
Here, MET cannot hold the keeper liable because their NtK does not satisfy PoFA. Nevertheless, both the NtK and their POPLA evidence repeatedly assert that they are pursuing the keeper under Schedule 4 and that their NtK is “compliant”.
That is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that section 8.1.1(d) prohibits. POPLA is operated for the BPA and should not endorse operators who mislead keepers about their legal liability. This breach of the Code is an independent ground to allow the appeal.
3. Equality Act 2010 – failure to make reasonable adjustments
MET argue that because the disabled driver did not speak to staff at the time, no “reasonable adjustments” were requested and therefore none were required. That is a misunderstanding of the Equality Act.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people is anticipatory. It applies to policies and systems in advance, for disabled people as a group. Service providers must design their procedures so that disabled users are not placed at a substantial disadvantage. It is not enough to say, after issuing a charge, that “you should have asked for help”.
In this case:
– The driver is a disabled Blue Badge holder.
– The driver has mobility restrictions and uses a steering aid and medical equipment.
– The badge was placed flat on the front passenger seat so that the driver did not need to twist, reach or lift it to dashboard height.
For some disabled drivers, lifting and positioning a badge on the dashboard is not realistic or safe. Placing the badge flat on the front seat was a reasonable way to display it in light of the driver’s disability. That method would be easily visible from normal ground-level inspection at the vehicle.
MET’s model uses elevated, remote cameras and no human check at ground level. Their effective policy appears to be:
– “If our overhead camera cannot see a badge on the dashboard, we will issue a PCN, even in a disabled bay.”
This is not an Equality Act-compliant system. It fails to anticipate that some disabled drivers cannot safely follow a rigid “on the dashboard only” requirement, and it offers no built-in flexibility or reasonable adjustment before issuing a charge.
4. MET’s suggestion that the driver should have hunted for a manager is unrealistic
MET say the driver should have gone inside, located a staff member or manager and either:
– asked for help lifting the badge to the dashboard, or
– requested a discretionary exemption.
This is not a reasonable expectation to impose on a disabled person who has parked in a marked disabled bay for a short visit to a restaurant.
It would require the disabled driver to:
– Walk or manoeuvre into the restaurant while already struggling with mobility and medical equipment.
– Find a suitable staff member or manager, explain their disability and personal circumstances in public, and then rely on that individual’s ad-hoc discretion.
The Equality Act does not require disabled people to negotiate bespoke exemptions every time they visit a premises. It requires the service provider to structure its policies so that disabled people can use the service in the first place without being placed at a substantial disadvantage.
The fact that MET say “an exemption is not guaranteed and is at the discretion of the manager on duty” simply underlines that their system is discretionary and ad hoc, not anticipatory or embedded as the law requires.
5. Blue Badge evidence – MET’s speculation is irrelevant
MET say it is “entirely possible” that the badge “does not belong to the driver” because the keeper has not named the driver and only the front of the badge has been provided.
This is irrelevant and unreasonable:
– The Blue Badge scheme benefits the disabled person, whether they are the driver or the passenger. There is no requirement that the badge holder must personally be the driver.
– Providing only the front of the badge is a proportionate way to evidence its validity while avoiding unnecessary disclosure of personal data on the reverse.
– MET have provided no evidence at all that the badge is invalid or misused; they merely speculate.
POPLA should attach no weight to MET’s speculation. The reasonable inference from the evidence is that a genuine disabled person was using a disabled bay with a valid badge.
6. Camera evidence does not prove the badge was not displayed or that a contract was formed
MET rely on a handful of photos taken from a fixed, elevated, front-facing camera over a very short time period (around a minute). That tells POPLA only that at those moments, from that particular angle, their camera could not see something lying flat on the passenger seat.
It does not prove that:
– The badge was not displayed at other times during the stay; or
– The badge could not be seen from a normal human viewpoint at the vehicle; or
– The vehicle was parked for any defined “period of parking” beyond the minimum consideration time required to read the signs and settle.
The appellant has explained that the badge was displayed on the seat and has provided a copy of the badge. The limitation lies in MET’s chosen technology and enforcement method, not in the conduct of a disabled motorist.
7. “Appeals Charter” cannot override statute or the Code
MET rely heavily on their own “Appeals Charter” and say the case does not fall under categories F.3(e) or F.3(g). That internal document is not law and cannot override:
– The statutory requirements of Schedule 4 PoFA;
– The Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments; or
– The PPSCoP prohibition on misusing PoFA.
The salient facts now before POPLA are:
– The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA and cannot create keeper liability.
– MET nevertheless assert keeper liability under PoFA, contrary to PPSCoP 8.1.1(d).
– A disabled Blue Badge holder used a disabled bay and displayed a valid badge in a way that was necessary and reasonable given their disability.
– MET’s enforcement model fails to anticipate and reasonably accommodate disabled users.
8. Conclusion
In summary:
1. MET’s NtK does not specify any period of parking and therefore fails a mandatory requirement of Schedule 4 PoFA. The appellant, as registered keeper, cannot be held liable.
2. Despite this, MET assert keeper liability under PoFA, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice section 8.1.1(d).
3. A disabled Blue Badge holder used a disabled bay. The badge was displayed on the front passenger seat because of the driver’s mobility and medical needs. That was a reasonable adjustment in practice.
4. MET’s rigid insistence on dashboard-only display, enforced solely by remote elevated cameras and discretionary “exemptions” on request, does not meet their anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010.
5. MET’s speculation about the badge and reliance on an internal “Appeals Charter” do nothing to cure these legal defects.
For all of these reasons, I submit that this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable against the registered keeper and invite POPLA to allow the appeal.
-
Hi, you sure you have this right?
The incident was in McDonalds in a suburb of Birmingham?
-
Just copy and paste this as your response to the operators mendacious "evidence":
POPLA comments on operator evidence – MET Parking Services
PCN [ref]
Vehicle: [reg]
Appellant: Registered Keeper
Site: McDonald’s, Southgate Park, Stansted Airport
These comments respond to MET Parking Services’ POPLA evidence. They should be read alongside my original appeal.
1. Land is not “relevant land” under PoFA – airport byelaws apply
This car park is within the Stansted Airport boundary and is subject to airport byelaws. As a matter of law, such land is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 expressly excludes land where parking is subject to statutory control, including byelaws. Where land is not “relevant land”, PoFA keeper liability simply does not exist at all, regardless of the wording of the Notice to Keeper.
Despite this, MET’s evidence repeatedly states that they are “pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012” and asserts that their Notice to Keeper is “compliant”. That is a misstatement of the law because PoFA cannot apply on non-relevant land.
The driver has not been identified. On non-relevant land, MET may only ever pursue the driver, not the keeper. As the appellant is the registered keeper only, the appeal must be upheld for this reason alone.
2. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice – section 8.1.1(d)
Because this is not relevant land, MET are in clear breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) version 1.1, section 8.1.1(d), which states that:
“The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”
MET’s Notice to Keeper and their POPLA evidence both assert that they are relying on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper at this airport-controlled site. This is exactly the type of misleading use of PoFA that section 8.1.1(d) prohibits.
POPLA is operated for the British Parking Association and must apply the PPSCoP. An operator who misleads keepers by claiming PoFA liability in circumstances where it is legally impossible should not be rewarded. This serious breach of the Code is an independent reason to allow the appeal.
3. Even if PoFA applied (it does not), the NTK is not compliant
For the avoidance of doubt, even if POPLA were to wrongly treat this as “relevant land”, MET’s Notice to Keeper still does not comply with all mandatory requirements of Schedule 4.
One key example is paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the Notice to Keeper to “specify the period of parking” to which the notice relates. MET’s notice does not specify any period of parking; they only provide a single point in time. A moment in time is not a “period of parking” within the meaning of PoFA.
PoFA is strict. Partial or substantial compliance is not enough. Without full compliance with every mandatory paragraph, there can be no transfer of liability from driver to keeper. MET have not identified the driver and cannot rely on PoFA, whether because the land is not relevant land or because the notice is defective, or both.
4. Disabled driver and Equality Act – failure to make reasonable adjustments
MET claim they are “confident” they have complied with “all current regulations” and that the disabled driver should have gone inside, located a member of staff, and requested help displaying the badge or asked for a discretionary exemption.
That position ignores their anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is owed in advance to disabled people as a group. It is not enough to say “you should have come and complained at the time”. Policies and systems must be designed so that disabled motorists are not placed at a substantial disadvantage.
For many disabled drivers, lifting a Blue Badge up to the dashboard may be difficult or impractical. In this case the disabled badge holder, who also has medical equipment to contend with, placed the valid Blue Badge flat on the front passenger seat. That is a reasonable adjustment to accommodate their disability.
MET’s model uses elevated remote cameras that cannot reliably see a badge on the front seat and they make no enquiry of the occupants. Their process is essentially:
– If the camera cannot see a badge on the dashboard, issue a PCN, even in a disabled bay.
That is not an Equality Act-compliant system. It is a computerised “no badge on dashboard = ticket” approach that fails to anticipate the needs of disabled motorists.
5. MET’s speculation about the badge is irrelevant and unreasonable
MET attempt to cast doubt on the Blue Badge by suggesting it “may not belong to the driver” because I have not named the driver and only provided the front of the badge.
This is irrelevant and unreasonable for several reasons:
– The Blue Badge scheme benefits the disabled person whether they are the driver or passenger; there is no requirement that the badge holder must personally be the driver.
– Providing the front of the badge is a reasonable way to evidence its validity without disclosing unnecessary personal data from the reverse side.
– The driver’s disability and use of a Blue Badge are now clearly evidenced to POPLA. MET have offered no evidence to contradict this, only speculation.
6. Camera evidence cannot prove the badge was not displayed
MET rely on photographs taken from a fixed, elevated, front-facing camera. By design, such a camera angle cannot properly see a flat object on the front passenger seat. The fact that MET’s camera could not see the badge does not prove that the badge was not displayed.
The appellant has confirmed that a valid Blue Badge was displayed and has produced evidence of it. The limitation of MET’s chosen technology is not a breach by a disabled motorist; it is a flaw in MET’s enforcement process.
7. Appeals Charter is not a defence to discrimination or misusing PoFA
MET rely heavily on their “Appeals Charter” and argue that because certain facts were not stated at the first appeal, they were entitled to ignore them. That is not correct.
A private “charter” written by the operator cannot override:
– Statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010; or
– The legal restrictions on using PoFA on non-relevant land; or
– The PPSCoP prohibition on misrepresenting keeper liability.
The salient facts are now fully before POPLA: airport-controlled land, non-relevant under PoFA; a disabled Blue Badge holder using a disabled bay; a badge reasonably displayed given their disability; and an operator misrepresenting keeper liability in breach of the Code of Practice.
8. Conclusion
To summarise:
1. This site is within the Stansted Airport boundary and subject to byelaws. It is not “relevant land” under PoFA, so keeper liability cannot arise in law.
2. MET’s NtK and evidence wrongly state that they are pursuing the registered keeper under PoFA, in clear breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d).
3. Even if PoFA applied (it does not), the NtK fails mandatory requirements such as specifying a period of parking, so no keeper liability could arise in any event.
4. A disabled Blue Badge holder used a disabled bay, and the badge was displayed in a way that was reasonable and necessary given their disability. MET’s system and practices fail to make reasonable adjustments and rely on limited camera angles rather than proper checks.
For all these reasons, I submit that this Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable against the registered keeper and invite POPLA to allow the appeal.
-
Here is Met Parkings contrived reply in Popla.
In the appeal to POPLA Mrs ***** claims that the driver is a disabled badge holder and had displayed the badge on the seat because they were unable to display it in the front windscreen due to mobility issues. She adds that we cannot hold her liable as the registered keeper as we have not met PoFA requirements. Whilst we note Mrs ***** comments regarding the driver’s mobility issues, we do not believe that placing the badge on the passenger seat is a viable alternative to displaying it in the front windscreen. Should the driver have found they were unable to lift the badge to a sufficient height to place it on the dashboard, they should have spoken to a member of staff and requested assistance in placing the Blue Badge in accordance with the terms and conditions or as an alternative they could have shown the badge to a manager and requested a temporary exemption from the requirement to display their badge in the front windscreen. It’s unclear why the driver failed to request such assistance or adjustments whilst they were on site. In this instance, Mrs ***** has simply stated reasonable adjustments should be made without them having actually been requested when the driver was on site, despite the fact that they were available to request. We are confident that we have considered the appeal under all current regulations. Regarding the Appeals Charter, we do not believe this would qualify as: • F.3(e) – at no point during the initial appeal process was it claimed that the driver was a disabled badge holder. If an appellant does not raise any qualifying circumstances, then there is no cause for us to request supporting evidence or consider the appeal under the Appeals Charter. We would also point out that it is entirely possible that the disabled badge provided does not belong to the driver, given Mrs ***** refusal to name the driver and the fact that only the front of the badge has been provided. • F.3(g) – exemption from the terms and is not guaranteed and is at the discretion of the manager on duty at the time of request. As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. To summarise, the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include vehicles parked, stopped or waiting in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times. Please note that these terms and conditions apply to all users of the car park, which naturally includes customers of the restaurant. As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in a disabled bay without a disabled badge clearly displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.
They want me reply within 7 days, engaging in Met Parking ridiculous stupidity achieves nothing, Popla will disregard anything a member of the public says anyway. Or should I counter their points? I don’t believe there is anything more that can be added to the initial appeal.
-
You’re only providing a copy of the front of the blue badge. Just the side that would be displayed in the vehicle. You do not give them a copy of the back with the holders details.
The POPLA code can be used up to 33 days after the date of the initial appeal rejection. It’s 28 days plus 5 days for service.
-
Is this not the Popla appeal, they’ve provided a Popla code on the last letter, giving me 28 days from the date of the letter which was the 22nd of Oct (can upload it again if required)
Also, no problem with the badge,should I consider blanking out the some of the digits on the badge just in case they have the abilty to snoop on badges?
-
The second one is slightly more to the point but omits the fact that the Ntk is not PoFA compliant and so they cannot pursue the keeper.
I would also include a copy of the front of the blue badge as evidence with the appeal. I wouldn't waste too much effort on the initial appeal as it is almost certainly going to be rejected. Save your energy for the POPLA appeal.
Even if POPLA is not successful, you don't pay it. It will go all the way to a country court claim which will eventually be discontinued.
Nobody pays a penny to MET scammers if they follow the advice here.
-
I’m not the badge holder, it’s my partner, they have always put it on the seat due to restrictions in mobility at time, also accompanied with a steering aid.
Does this work?
POPLA Appeal – PCN [bla bla]
Vehicle Registration: [bla bla]
Operator: MET Parking Services
Appellant: Registered Keeper
1: A Valid Blue Badge Was Displayed – MET’s Camera Could Not See It
A valid Blue Badge was displayed by the driver, who is the legitimate badge holder. I, as the registered keeper, was not present and am not required to identify the driver.
The badge was placed on the front passenger seat, where it is flat, stable, and visible from normal ground-level inspection. While the site signage states it must be in the windscreen, this does not override the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled drivers. Placing it on the seat was necessary due to the driver’s mobility needs.
The Blue Badge itself proves the driver is disabled, and MET cannot challenge this or require additional evidence. Issuing a PCN without considering the practical display needs of a disabled driver is a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
MET’s evidence relies solely on an elevated, forward-facing camera, which cannot see the seat. Its absence from that view does not prove the badge was not displayed.
2. MET Has Not Met POFA Requirements to Transfer Liability to the Keeper
MET has not identified the driver. As the registered keeper, I am not obliged to provide this information.
To transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, MET must fully comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
I assert their Notice to Keeper does not meet all mandatory requirements. Without full compliance, the keeper cannot be held liable.
Conclusion
The Blue Badge was displayed by the disabled driver.
MET’s elevated camera could not see it.
The badge was displayed in a reasonable position due to the driver’s disability.
MET failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.
POFA has not been satisfied, so keeper liability does not apply.
I respectfully request that POPLA allow the appeal.
Signed
___
Or I could add a condensed version if applicable?
POPLA Appeal – PCN [bla bla ]
Vehicle Registration: [bla bla]
Operator: MET Parking Services
Appellant: Registered Keeper
A valid Blue Badge was displayed by the driver, who is the legitimate badge holder. I, as the registered keeper, was not present and am not required to identify the driver.
The badge was placed on the front passenger seat, visible from normal ground-level inspection. While the signs state it must be in the windscreen, this does not override the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled drivers. Placing it on the seat was necessary due to the driver’s mobility needs.
MET’s evidence relies solely on an elevated, forward-facing camera, which cannot see the seat. Its absence from that view does not prove the badge was not displayed.
MET has failed to consider reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. They have also not fully complied with POFA to transfer liability to the keeper.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allow the appeal.
Signed?
-
Of course they sent the NtK to the Keeper. That’s what it says on the tin!
They have no idea who was driving? How would they, unless the Keeper blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise?
You have 33 days from the date on the initial appeal rejection notice. (28 days plus 5 days for service)
I don’t understand why you insist on leaving the blue badge on the seat rather than on the dashboard? A Blue Badge is expected to be on the dashboard or fascia panel, not on the seat. The official guidance is quite explicit about this.
Only if there is no dashboard/fascia do they contemplate an alternative location – still clearly visible from outside. An easy-read version of the DfT booklet for England states: “You must put the Blue Badge (and parking clock) on the dashboard of the vehicle, where they can be seen.
So while a seat might be defensible if it was plainly visible and readable, it does not follow the official instructions and, as you have found out, carries a higher risk of a PCN.
-
Im running out of time here I think, 22nd Oct they sent the Popla code if I want to appeak.
Just to reiterate, they sent the notice to me the registered keeper, but not the driver, no driver name has been given/offered.
The disabled badge was on the seat as it always is, not viewble on the photos they supplied which were 4 photos 20 seconds apart in each instance
Driver has been to the branch since, they were not interested even with the badge in hand.
Sign is next to the vehicle (see on in the photo, not sure on its wording as yet.
Not mentioned the badge at this point but guess i should in the popla appeal
Don't think there is much more I can add
-
I'll go back to the that branch over the weekend and take another look but from memory it's not that prominent the sign, the badge was as always on the front seat, It's never placed in the window.
I'll upload the sign/location when next photographed,
-
As there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period, no contract was formed. A single timestamped photo is not proof that the Blue Badge was not displayed. For example, the Blue badge may have been removed just prior to the vehicle leaving or the vehicle may have only just arrived and the driver had not yet had a chance to put the blue badge in the dashboard.
Also, the sign you showed us, where is that I relation to the bay? Is that sign readable without having to exit the vehicle?
You can search the forum for recent POPLA appeals to get a flavour of what they require and the points to throw at them. A POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection, so no rush. Just show us anything before you send it so we can suggest any edits or additions.
-
Here is their letter with the Popla verification code.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JGr62DfJ/metparkingrefusal.png) (https://postimg.cc/JGr62DfJ)
-
You actually have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection.
-
Hello, predictably they have replied and have provided a Popla code, shall I upload the letter here (but blank out the Popla code). they sent it 12 days ago and stated I had 28 days to appeal to Popla
-
They have no idea who anyone is in their CCTV. Leave everything for the POPLA appeal, for what it is worth.
-
Thankyou, Ill do just that.
No mention of the badge on the seat? They will know from the photos if they recorded the info prior and after their photos that the NTK and the driver by way of gender were not 1 & the same.
-
There is no "warden"! They have CCTV camera above each disabled bay. If the CCTV operator can't see the blue badge because it is not o the dashboard, they send you a PCN.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant because there ids no period of parking. Also, there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period, which means that there is no evidence of contract formation.
Likely to go all the way to a claim if POPLA don't agree, but, hey, who cares about POPLA? For now simply appeal with the following so that you can get a POPLA code:
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 Keeper (NtK) 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 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.
-
Parked in a family pool car at McDonalds in a disabled bay, placed badge on seat as always do, bought a meal (receipt retained) and left 12 mins later. Sat with my meal by the window in full view of the car.
A week or so later the enclosed Notice to Keeper ticket turns up, I’ve had a look at the online photos and it is just 4 photos all the same as the on on the notice, just different time stamps, approx 20 secs apart, 21:50 - 21:51:20 - 21:51:40 & 21:52. ( I was served at 21:54:!4)
Have since taken a photo of the signage, both are enclosed.
Not sure why their wording ‘apparent’ is used, but as such no enforcement officer of any kind was in attendance.
Have been back to the branch with the car, with the ticket and with the badge, they simply said ‘email MET parking’ which is not how it works
No drivers details has been given, no appeal notice as yet filled in. How do I approach this?
(just as an aside, it’s actually a bit embarrassing knowing they’re filming the car, part of the disability is bag for fluids which has to be manoeuvred / becomes visible a little when getting out of a car, not sure Im happy with them remotely taking photographs of the car etc.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yvw2NT3r/mcdtick.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/Yvw2NT3r)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XBwmn1yP/mcdtick2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XBwmn1yP)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qzfqvN9k/Screenshot-2025-10-01-at-19-07-27.png) (https://postimg.cc/qzfqvN9k)