Free Traffic Legal Advice

The signs weren't clear so I am going to use that at the basis for the appeal. I am going to send the following:

Dear MET Parking Services,

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I dispute this charge for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage

The signage at the site fails the legal test of prominence and fairness. The text is minuscule, and the signs are positioned too high to be legible for a driver or passenger. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be fair, transparent, and clearly communicated, which is not the case here. Your signage fails to meet the standards required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) for legibility and prominence, making it unenforceable. Please see the attached pictures as proof.

2. Frustration of Contract Due to Service Delays

The driver was a paying customer at the restaurant, and the delay in departure was caused by slow service due to high demand and capacity issues. This is a circumstance beyond the driver’s control, making enforcement of the parking limit unfair. The contract was frustrated by external factors, and no fair or reasonable enforcement should apply in such cases.

3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL)

There was no financial loss suffered by the landowner or the parking operator, as the restaurant was operating and serving food to paying customers. The charge is unreasonable, disproportionate, and punitive, rather than a genuine reflection of any loss incurred.

4. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Misrepresentation of Appeal Timeframe

Your NtK states that an appeal must be submitted within 28 days from the date of issue, which is a breach of Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP. The correct timeframe should be 28 days from the date of receipt. Any breach of the PPSCoP invalidates your access to keeper data under your KADOE contract with the DVLA. This procedural error means the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Given the above, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled immediately. If you reject this appeal, I require a POPLA code so I can escalate the matter.

Yours faithfully,

Hi everyone,

The driver received a parking ticket on 19th March (but only received it a few days ago because of issues with his post) for the following contravention (see attached):

Location: Mcdonalds Garston, 873 St Albans Rd, North Watford, Watford WD25 0NH


Date 16th March 2025

Arrival time: 17:38:06
Departure time: 19:51:05
Maximum permitted stay: 90 minutes
Length of Stay: 132 minutes


The driver admits he forgot to actively check the signage for the permitted time, however he spoke to the manager of the Mcdonalds and he said not to worry he would input the details on the system and ensure there are no fines.

The driver's friend also did the same and has not been issued any fines.

Is it worth the driver appealing the charge? There are different arguments regarding it is an invoice not a penalty, and they can not enforce it etc. Also people have mentioned chatting to the McDonalds manager however in this case it is a separate company that issue the penalties. The driver is wondering if there is any point appealing?


If nothing can be done the driver will pay the charge but he wanted to check first. He has also drafted a letter to the company:



27th March 2025
Appeals Department
MET Parking Services Ltd
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Ticket number:
Vehicle registration number: 

You issued me a parking ticket on 19th March 2025 but I believe it was incorrectly issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reason:


• The alleged contravention did not occur
Quite simply, this was issued wrongly as the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact that the manager of the McDonalds said there would be no issue for the driver staying after the 90 minutes time frame and he would input the driver’s details into the system in order to avoid a fine occurring. The driver’s friends stayed for an even longer period and were not issued a fine, so this is completely unacceptable and counter to what the store told the driver. Thus the driver was authorised by the manager of the branch to stay for this time. Please remove the fine and follow up with the store.


If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Yours faithfully,

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]