Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: DutifulSon on October 14, 2025, 09:53:54 am
-
I guess she wanted to make sure that she was recognised as the Organ Grinder and not the Monkey.
-
Thank you for all your help and we have got resolution from the franchise owner as follows:
Met Parking, the company responsible for parking at our Neasden site, have confirmed that the parking charge has been cancelled.
While we understand your concerns, it remains the responsibility of all blue badge holders to display their badge clearly when using a disabled parking bay, in line with standard parking regulation.
Personal criticism and threats are unnecessary and unhelpful. Our team strives to provide support and clarity where possible, and I hope future communications remain focused on resolving the matter constructively.
With the cancellation of this charge, we consider this matter resolved. We trust this concludes the matter.
Kind regards,
Trishna Vaid
-
Of course you should highlight this on social media and any other media.
-
MET Parking is the equivalent of brown smelly stuff you don't want to be treading in. However, they are easily beatable.
Has your appeal been rejected yet and if so, have you received a POPLA code? You may want to ask Ms Vaid, who is the Monkey and who is the Organ Grinder in her company's relationship with MET. Have you tried getting your local media interested in this?
If the appeal has been rejected, then you will need to appeal to POPLA. You already have the legal/CoP compliance points in your appeal. Unfortunately, mitigation is not taken into account at POPLA although if you can prove a real emergency, you can invoke Annexe F of the PPSCoP.
You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit a POPLA appeal. Please show us what you intend to send before doing so, in order that we can check for any errors or additional points that should be made.
Remember that as their NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA para 9(2)(a), they cannot hold the Keeper liable as long as the driver is not identified. That should be your opening POPLA point. PPSCoP failures should follow.
Hi b789,
Thank you for your response. Much appreciated.
Yes, my appeal was rejected and I have received a POPLA code - as per https://ibb.co/twJZXPcF.
As for Ms Vaid, she has failed to respond to my email and I did think of posting this on social media to garner some attention on this. Would you recommend this avenue? I shall also contact my local media to gauge the interest in this story.
As a family we would consider it as real emergency due to the fact that if there was delay in the intervention then the elderly passenger could have had a hypoglycemic episode. This episode can cause cognitive impairment. In light of this information and in your experience would this constitute the invoking of Annexe F of the PPSCoP?
I shall most definitely share the POPLA appeal once ready for your perusal.
-
MET Parking is the equivalent of brown smelly stuff you don't want to be treading in. However, they are easily beatable.
Has your appeal been rejected yet and if so, have you received a POPLA code? You may want to ask Ms Vaid, who is the Monkey and who is the Organ Grinder in her company's relationship with MET. Have you tried getting your local media interested in this?
If the appeal has been rejected, then you will need to appeal to POPLA. You already have the legal/CoP compliance points in your appeal. Unfortunately, mitigation is not taken into account at POPLA although if you can prove a real emergency, you can invoke Annexe F of the PPSCoP.
You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit a POPLA appeal. Please show us what you intend to send before doing so, in order that we can check for any errors or additional points that should be made.
Remember that as their NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA para 9(2)(a), they cannot hold the Keeper liable as long as the driver is not identified. That should be your opening POPLA point. PPSCoP failures should follow.
-
Dear Free Traffic Legal Advice team,
I’ve been directed to your service for guidance regarding a private parking charge issued to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle.
The incident occurred at the Neasden McDonald’s car park, where the driver briefly stopped in a disabled bay close to the entrance. This was due to an urgent need for the elderly disabled passenger to consume food, stemming from a pre-existing medical condition. For context, this took place on the evening of the passenger’s sister’s passing, and the individual was in considerable emotional and physical distress.
Although the passenger holds a valid disabled badge and remained in the vehicle throughout, the badge was not displayed at the time. Unfortunately, due to their condition and emotional state, they were unable to recall or manage this detail while the driver went inside to purchase food.
I have visited the same branch again to speak with the Manager, though he mentioned he was unable to intervene.
I then wrote to the McDonalds franchisee who did not respond until I had to call McDonalds customer service agents and eventually she responded that she was unable to intervene.
I would be grateful for any advice or support you can offer in challenging this charge.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/McDonald's/@51.5638964,-0.260038,3a,75y,105.39h,85.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srErzFb49sH75Sg2mwbDvQw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.860237053961669%26panoid%3DrErzFb49sH75Sg2mwbDvQw%26yaw%3D105.3905419565034!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48761aad11f1a601:0xca4fcaf362f57461!8m2!3d51.5635935!4d-0.259625!16s%2Fg%2F1pycbw0v7?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D (https://www.google.com/maps/place/McDonald's/@51.5638964,-0.260038,3a,75y,105.39h,85.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srErzFb49sH75Sg2mwbDvQw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.860237053961669%26panoid%3DrErzFb49sH75Sg2mwbDvQw%26yaw%3D105.3905419565034!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48761aad11f1a601:0xca4fcaf362f57461!8m2!3d51.5635935!4d-0.259625!16s%2Fg%2F1pycbw0v7?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
https://ibb.co/4wnvS1yr (https://ibb.co/4wnvS1yr)
https://ibb.co/sdx4KRDK (https://ibb.co/sdx4KRDK)
https://ibb.co/xqn89DxK (https://ibb.co/xqn89DxK)
https://ibb.co/7t6WsN9z (https://ibb.co/7t6WsN9z)
https://ibb.co/twJZXPcF (https://ibb.co/twJZXPcF)
Letter sent to MET :
29 August 2025
Appeals Department
MET Parking Services Ltd
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE
Parking Charge Ref No - Notice to Keeper xxxxxxx.
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 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 warped interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Furthermore, your signage fails to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1, which states:
"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."
There are no signs with terms that can be viewed from within the vehicle, meaning that a driver with a disability was unable to make an informed decision before parking. The vehicle was parked in a disabled bay, and all occupants, including the driver, are Blue Badge holders. A copy of a valid Blue Badge is attached.
Additionally, your NtK fails to specify any "period of parking", as required by PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). A single timestamp does not constitute a period of parking and does not evidence that the vehicle was stopped for more than the minimum consideration period before leaving. No contract was formed.
Moreover, it is not disputed that the driver had a legitimate right to use the disabled bay. The vehicle was occupied throughout, and at no point was it left unattended. If your operative had any concerns about badge display, they could and should have approached the occupants and made a simple request to confirm entitlement or to display the badge if required. They did not. Instead, they chose to issue a PCN without making any attempt to clarify the situation, which is wholly unreasonable behaviour.
The fact remains: the driver had a right to use the bay. A Blue Badge was in the vehicle and could have been shown on request. The vehicle was not left unattended, and no contract was formed. The requirement to display the badge arises only under the contractual terms — terms which never took effect, as MET has not shown that any contract was ever accepted.
Letter sent to Franchisee :
30 August 2025
Ms T Vaid
Thrive Restaurants Ltd
The Accounting Centre Ltd,
First Floor,
736, High Road, London,
N12 9QD
Dear Ms Vaid
Parking Charge Ref No – Notice to Keeper xxxxxxxx.
Kindly note the above Parking Charge dated 20th Aug 2025 was received on 26th Aug 2025 and I am writing to you to request you to get the parking charge cancelled.
Please note that my 89-year-old disabled father and family took our custom to your Macdonald franchise on 13 August and had parked in a disabled bay. However, we did not find any signage at the time informing that a valid Blue Disabled Badge would have to be displayed even though my father had one in his possession to display (as attached).
My father and I also attended to your Neasden branch today to speak with your manager Henok to request if he could intervene to get it cancelled. However, he mentioned that he was unable to without your authority and hence this letter to you.
Also note that I am not sending the front of the badge as there is no legal right to demand access to sensitive personal data such as names and photographs, particularly when the front of the badge has already been provided, clearly demonstrating its validity at the time in question. Though, rest assured it is valid to my father.
We also believe that the Parking Charge is excessive after having spent money in your franchise already. It takes away an eating experience at a MacDonald’s and further spend in-restaurant as we would have to part with £60 to a company that is fleecing your customers.
We hope you will be in a position to intervene and get the Parking Charge cancelled.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Letter sent to MET on receipt of their letter dated 17th Sept :
27 September 2025
Appeals Department
MET Parking Services Ltd
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE
Parking Charge Ref No - Notice to Keeper.
Further to your letter dated 17th September, it is regrettable that your latest response continues to reflect a disregard for both legal obligations and basic standards of decency.
To reiterate: the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. You are not a statutory authority and possess no power to compel disclosure of such information. The Keeper therefore declines to assist in your speculative enquiries.
With regard to your request to view the reverse side of a Blue Badge: you have no lawful basis to demand access to sensitive personal data such as names or photographs. The front of the badge has already been provided, clearly confirming its validity at the relevant time. Your request is not only excessive but wholly inappropriate, constituting a misuse of personal data under the UK GDPR.
Moreover, there were mitigating circumstances for our visit to the McDonald’s premises due to the disabled passenger’s health and the urgent need to provide food in order to prevent further deterioration. The badge was not displayed at the time owing to a disability-related barrier. Under the Equality Act 2010, you are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals, including consideration of such circumstances. If the badge had been displayed, would your company have demanded to inspect the reverse side and extract personal details from it? The very notion is intrusive and unjustifiable.
Should you wish to verify the badge’s validity, you may contact the issuing authority—London Borough of Harrow—who will confirm that it is a legitimate Disabled Badge issued to a disabled resident at the same address.
You are reminded that your Notice to Keeper fails to meet the statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and as such, you have no lawful basis to pursue the Keeper. Additionally, your signage does not comply with the mandatory standards set out in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice, and your operator images fail to demonstrate any “period of parking” as required under Schedule 4. No contract was formed, and no contravention occurred.
Your speculative invoice is therefore without merit. Repeated requests for irrelevant or private information will not be entertained. You are urged to cancel this unjustified charge or, alternatively, reject the appeal and issue a POPLA code—at which point you may choose to incur further costs only to have an independent assessor confirm the points already raised and instruct you to cancel the PCN.
Yours sincerely,