Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: zexx on October 22, 2025, 10:38:20 pm

The driver is not a company.

Companies cannot drive cars. Is the notice addressed to your lease company?

To: MET Parking Services Ltd

Subject: Appeal against Parking Charge Notice [insert reference number]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and dispute your allegation. The charge must be cancelled for the following reasons.

1. No evidence of breach or liable party
Your allegation that “the occupants left McDonald’s premises” is unsupported by evidence. The photographs merely show the vehicle parked within the car park; they do not identify who left, when, or where. The term “occupants” is undefined, and you have not shown which individual is alleged to have breached any term. The registered keeper cannot be held liable for the movements of unnamed individuals.

2. Unclear and undefined boundaries
Your allegation depends on the notion of “leaving the premises,” but no physical or contractual boundary is defined anywhere on site. A driver or passenger cannot know when they are supposedly leaving the premises unless clear lines, markings, or signage warn them that they are crossing into a restricted area. You are put to strict proof of:

• the exact boundaries of what you consider “McDonald’s premises”;
• how these are demarcated; and
• what signage warns users they are about to breach a boundary that triggers a charge.

Without that clarity, no term exists that a motorist could knowingly accept and then breach. Contractual certainty is essential for enforceability.

3. Signage fails to communicate a clear contractual term
The signs at the site (as in your own evidence) merely state “For use by customers while on site only” and “Drivers and passengers must remain on the premises while the vehicle remains in the car park”. There is no definition of “site” or “premises”, and no notice explaining what area constitutes McDonald’s property or at what point a person is deemed to have left it. This wording is vague, ambiguous, and incapable of forming a contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

4. No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it does not include the required invitation for the keeper to pay the charge. You have therefore forfeited the right to pursue the keeper.

5. Lack of landowner authority
You are put to strict proof of a contemporaneous, written agreement with the landowner that explicitly authorises MET Parking Services Ltd to issue and enforce parking charges for “leaving site” incidents at this location.

For all the reasons above, your charge is unsustainable and must be cancelled. If you reject this appeal, please supply the POPLA verification code so the matter may be escalated for independent review.

Yours faithfully,

[Name of Keeper]
[Postal Address]