Free Traffic Legal Advice

As quoted in MET letter below, 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. Also, 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. Although it's unfair, you said I can't win POPLA, so either pay now for £60, else £100 if POPLA going to reject my appeal, or I ignore the letter and have constant harassment from debt collector knocking on my door and worse is I have to pay £250 when I have to go to court....what choices do I have?

Snippet of appeal reply below:
"""
We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act
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: 3860845071 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.
"""

PCN? do  you mean what is MET parking services registered office address?

Thank you for your help so far. Here is my attempt to the appeal, please advice if it's any good. Many thanks!

Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from MET Parking Services (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper. I appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my position that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should therefore be upheld. My appeal is based on the following grounds:

1. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The operator does not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from me as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. MET Parking Services have failed to do so.

As MET Parking Services now concede that they are not seeking to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold me liable as the keeper, and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be held liable for the charge. My appeal should therefore be upheld.

2. Breach of the PPSSCoP – Misrepresentation
The parking charge notice issued by MET Parking Services falsely claimed that they would be able to hold me liable as the registered keeper under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, despite the fact that they were aware (or ought to have been aware) that they had not complied with the relevant conditions to do so. This was confirmed in their response to my appeal, in which they admitted that they were not seeking to hold me liable under PoFA.

This is in direct contravention of section 8.1.1 (d) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP), which states:

8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:
a) implies or would cause the recipient to infer statutory authority where none exists;
b) deliberately resembles a public authority civil enforcement penalty charge notice;
c) uses prohibited terminology as set out in Annex E; or
d) states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that as the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge, and I request that my appeal is upheld.

3. Unfair Parking Charge – Unavoidable Extended Stay Due to Slow Service

The alleged contravention occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the vehicle’s occupants. The vehicle was parked while its occupants were customers at the establishment, with two separate orders placed at:

First order at 17:56

Second order at 18:40

It was a Sunday evening, and the restaurant was operating at near-full capacity, leading to delays in service. The second order alone took at least 20 minutes to be prepared for collection and consumption. Had the service been quicker, the vehicle would have left within the 90-minute stay limit.

A parking system that penalizes genuine customers who experience slow service due to factors outside their control is both unreasonable and unfair. The operator has failed to account for situations where delays are caused by the business itself, making the charge punitive rather than a genuine parking enforcement measure.

4. Unenforceable Penalty – No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL)
The parking charge of £100 (or £60 if paid early) is disproportionate to any potential loss suffered by the landowner. Under contract law, damages for breach should be a genuine pre-estimate of loss rather than a penalty designed to deter.

The car park is free for customers within a set time limit, meaning the landowner suffers no financial loss from the extended stay.

MET Parking Services has not demonstrated how this charge is a genuine estimate of any loss incurred.

The charge appears to be punitive and aimed at generating revenue rather than covering actual losses.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any contract term that imposes a disproportionate financial burden is considered unfair and unenforceable. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the court found that a charge may be justified only if it serves a legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence. However, in this case, there is no legitimate interest, as the delay was caused by restaurant service, and no financial loss was suffered by the landowner.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above:

The operator has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA.

The notice misrepresented legal liability, breaching the PPSSCoP.

The extended stay was unavoidable due to slow service, making the charge unfair.

The charge is disproportionate and fails the Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss test.

I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the Parking Charge Notice is cancelled.

Felt defeated..... they reply and rejected the appeal, below is their reply.

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 note your comments, however, the time limit was still applicable.
We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of
motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and
conditions.
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.



Should I appeal to POPLA?

I looked at similar cases, this is the draft for the appeal. Please advise if it's any good? Many thanks in advance.


"""   I 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. Premier Park 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.

Also, you are in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), I would suggest you  remove the charges, else a formal complaint to the DVLA will be on it's way.     """

Hello, yes I did. Apologies my editing skills are poor and my equipment not up to par so taking ages to reduce image size etc. please find attached NtK and signage, premises surroundings, etc.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Will go to McDonalds, may I ask what evidence I need to get from them to proof that they have/can cancelled the ticket? They may just fob me off. There's no proof and I could have end up late paying the whole £100 instead the early payment of £50. Thank you

Hello,

Received NtK from MET parking services.
Date of contravention: 2nd March
Date of issue 5th March
Received Ntk 9th March

Maximum permitted stay:90 mins
length of stay: 115 mins

Background:
Sat in for food with children, with 2 separate orders, one at 17:56 another at 18:40. It was Sunday, restaurant was busy and almost at full capacities so the service was slow, especially 2nd order which took at least 20 minutes to be ready to collect for consumption.  If service wasn't slow, we could have left within 90 mins stay. 
Have not appeal yet, as hoping for advice on how to fight this.

Many thanks in advance.