Free Traffic Legal Advice

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,

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.

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?

Just a final update to this particular one.

The missing blips were pivotal to them having to cancel the ticket (thanks of course to the input within this thread)

After cancelling their ticket as a 'gesture of goodwill' (interpreted as they were in the wrong).

I was back there today, July was the issue, since then they have resurfaced that part of the road, at a later date they repainted the double yellow lines and in the past month they have no added the blips.   

I wonder how many others have paid the fine at this particular location?  I guess the local authority won't be making any refunds.

Here are the blips

Here is their letter with the Popla verification code.

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.

I have now heard back from the Council re my appealing the alleged contravention.

The letter is enclosed, what I will add to the letter is that the kerb markings were not faded as they simply were not there as my initial photos showed.  Further to that and before I lodged this appeal after having my first one refused the lines had been freshly repainted but the blips again were not in attendance.  I’ll have to check them in the next week or so to see if they do add them.

Thankyou again to those giving their advice, which without I would have struggled I’m sure.

Again, Thankyou!

I guess it’s of no relevance but on the NTO it clearly states ‘Manor Croft’. but it’s actually Manor Drive , Manor Croft is the other side of the car park.  This is from google maps 2025




..