Free Traffic Legal Advice

else a formal complaint to the DVLA will be on its way.

(no apostrophe)

Unfortunately, that NtK is about as PoFA compliant as you can get. There is a minor technical flaw but it is not likely to be enough to persuade a judge that all the requirements of PoFA have been met.

You could argue that the signs are too small, high up and almost impossible to read as the text is mostly in a minuscule font. The other point is that their statement on the back of the NtK that says: "...please forward your appeal within 28 days from the date of issue of this notice..." is a breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) which states:


Appeal for now with the following but don't be surprised when it is rejected:

Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference]

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.

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,

[Keeper's Full Name]

Appeal letter attached as for your reference. Should I appeal further to POPLA or I actually need to pay the hefty fines? 

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

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.

Why do you think that you, the Keeper have no liability when we already told you that the NtK is PoFA compliant?

If you are appealing as the Keeper, and decline to identify the driver, then MET can pursue you for the charge. I think you may be misunderstanding what that means.

If the Keeper is appealing only as the Keeper, irrespective of whether they were the driver or not, they must always refer to the driver in the third party. No "I did this or that". Only "the driver did this or that".

In this case, because the NtK is PoFA compliant, it doesn't make a difference to MET because they can just chase you as the Keeper. Simply stating that there is no Keeper liability without pointing out why, is not an appeal (or defence) point.

I don't see where MET have "conceded" that they are not pursuing the Keeper under the PoFA provisions.

Also. at POPLA, mitigation will not be considered. So, the slow service or whatever, is not METs fault. Whilst mitigation can help if it ever went to a haring in court, that is a different matter.

Again, no GPEOL will not interest POPLA. They will only be looking at the actual contract law. Although you could raise it under the terms of the CRA, most POPLA assessors don't know enough about that to even consider it properly. Again, that is something that would be available to you if it went to court.

Don't pin your hopes on POPLA for this one.

I'm confused. Admittedly I haven't read both drafts fully but in both you are claiming the NtK is not PoFA compliant when you've been told repeatedly here that it is...

Copy/paste appeals are absolutely fine if the circumstances are identical - but where they aren't you must be discerning about which elements to use, and construct one that is a true reflection of your case.

What's the address on the PCN?

No. The address where the alleged breach occurred. You redacted the post code and I cannot find McDonald's Prince of Wales.